Article: Twins, Please Don't Trade Brian Dozier!

[Mike Sixel]

 

 

In response to my long post that ended:

......

• If not, it's continued evaluation of the progress made to date, which will still include the answering and clarifying of what the needs are. And then on to Plan B (or J, or Q, or whatever we're up to by now).

 

 

This is a great post. I just don't agree on a couple points:

 

1. They are never outbidding the top teams for a Jon Lester type, imo. The only way they get an ace is to draft or trade for one.

 

2. Even with Dozier, they aren't likely to be all that good in 2018, unless it all breaks right. Me? I don't like setting my corporate strategy under the assumption that 12-20 things all break 100% correctly. It just doesn't seem prudent.

 

3. Dozier is a FA in 2 years.....he's worth A LOT more now, than 12-18 months from now. I think the return is significantly different now than when he has 1 year or less of time left under his deal. I also don't think it likely he is as good next year as this year, since, you know, he was one of the best players in baseball last year. 

 

4. Again, that was a great, great post. We just have not reached exactly the same conclusions, nor would we take exactly the same path. Hard to say which of us is more correct (as I think we are both partly correct, frankly).

[IndianaTwin]

 

Since you brought it up...the Johan Santana trade is the perfect example of why it is self defeating to ever put yourself in a position of "needing" to trade a good player.

The Twins got bent over a barrel, and ended up with virtually nothing. The move then was to keep Santana, put another 230 innings on his arm and get the value of one more season, and take the picks. Instead, they forced an "obvious" trade and hurt themselves.

Yes, I was thinking someone might bring up Johan Santana. I do see his situation as analogous.

Santana was a multi-year Cy Young candidate, mind you. And for him, we got Kevin Mulvey (Who?), Deolis Guerra (Who?), Philip Humber (Who?) and 2.6 WAR from Carlos Gomez.

 

Then, we traded Gomez for 1.3 WAR of J.J. Hardy, who we traded for Jim Hoey. About him, I wish I could say, "Who?" Instead, we got worse than "Who?" We got Hoey. And he sucked.

 

I'm just afraid that if we trade Dozier we're going to end with Hoey, (Chin-Lung) Hu, and another "Who?" Oh, and sorry to be a Grinch here, but probably Cindy Lou Who as a throw-in.

[IndianaTwin]

 

This is a great post. I just don't agree on a couple points:

 

1. They are never outbidding the top teams for a Jon Lester type, imo. The only way they get an ace is to draft or trade for one.

 

2. Even with Dozier, they aren't likely to be all that good in 2018, unless it all breaks right. Me? I don't like setting my corporate strategy under the assumption that 12-20 things all break 100% correctly. It just doesn't seem prudent.

 

3. Dozier is a FA in 2 years.....he's worth A LOT more now, than 12-18 months from now. I think the return is significantly different now than when he has 1 year or less of time left under his deal. I also don't think it likely he is as good next year as this year, since, you know, he was one of the best players in baseball last year. 

 

4. Again, that was a great, great post. We just have not reached exactly the same conclusions, nor would we take exactly the same path. Hard to say which of us is more correct (as I think we are both partly correct, frankly).

 

Thanks, Mike. And I agree that we're probably both partly correct (and by extension, partly incorrect.).

 

I also agree that it doesn't seem prudent to assume that we WILL be competitive in 2018. But I don't think it's prudent to assume that we WON'T be either. And that's the gist of my point in saying it might make sense to ride out 2017.

 

After all, maybe with new leadership we might try outbidding everyone for a Lester type. Wouldn't that be a welcome surprise?

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Yes, I was thinking someone might bring up Johan Santana. I do see his situation as analogous.

Santana was a multi-year Cy Young candidate, mind you. And for him, we got Kevin Mulvey (Who?), Deolis Guerra (Who?), Philip Humber (Who?) and 2.6 WAR from Carlos Gomez.

 

Then, we traded Gomez for 1.3 WAR of J.J. Hardy, who we traded for Jim Hoey. About him, I wish I could say, "Who?" Instead, we got worse than "Who?" We got Hoey. And he sucked.

 

I'm just afraid that if we trade Dozier we're going to end with Hoey, (Chun-Lung) Hu, and another "Who?" Oh, and sorry to be a Grinch here, but probably Cindy Lou Who as well.

 

the other side of the coin is choosing to do nothing, and losing 90+ games again with basically the same roster.....that seems like a very likely outcome to me.

 

Just because they made bad trades before doesn't mean they should sit around paralyzed now.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I get it. Trade Dozier while his value is high. Get several prospects and watch them take off. 

 

The question is, does it work? I only spent a few minutes doing this, but when I looked through the Indians and Cubs post-season rosters, I found the following:

• Drafted by the Indians or Cubs: 11.
• Free agent signings: 8 
• Signed as minor league free agents: 4
• Acquired in mid-season trades: 21
• Rule 5 draft: 1
• Waiver claim: 1
• Received in a trade prior to any major league experience: 3.

When I looked at the top 10 in WAR in each league and how they got to their current team, I found the following: 

• Acquired in draft: 13
• Free agent signing: 2
• Signed as minor league free agent: 2
• Traded as a major leaguer: 1
• Received in a trade prior to any major league experience: 2 (one of which was Kluber, also listed above).

I didn't go cherry-picking -- I just went for accessible lists of how two good teams were created and for a list of productive players.

 

Perhaps you didn't mean to cherry-pick, but you didn't pick any data that was particularly useful either.  (Although I'd argue that "received in trade prior to any major league experience" and "Acquired in mid-season trades" are pretty big cherry picks -- by that categorization, Anthony Rizzo is excluded from your analysis, as would be Moncada, Urias, De Leon, Giolito, etc., basically every top prospect being discussed this winter.)

 

Of course most good players are products of the draft.  That's because there are vastly more draft picks than there are trades (particularly trades of consequence).

 

 

 

And I think Dozier is good enough to still be a serviceable part on a competitive team, even 2-3 years from now. And good teams a) hang on to the players who have developed into good players after they have been drafted (or signed as international free agents) and then fill in the holes by signing free agents and trading for guys who already have some major league experience.

 

Think of two of our best known trades -- Garza for the prospect Delmon and Pierznynski for several young guys. Delmon didn't pan out, and the best part of the A.J. was getting Nathan, already in the majors but underutilized. Boof who?  

 

Why do you say "2-3 years"?  There is really no way Dozier is retained beyond 2 years, or maybe more accurately, there is no way we should want him beyond 2 years.  Either he continues performing at a good level and demands a massive commitment for his age 32-36 seasons, or his performance craters over the next 2 years which makes him affordable but not particularly valuable.

 

Your trade examples seem skewed too.  Nathan was good for a number of years, but the 20 year old lotto ticket part of that trade (Liriano) contributed to just as many playoff seasons and even returned our eventual starting SS upon his exit.

 

Also, the Delmon trade was a failure in part because we over-valued MLB experience and under-valued prospect potential.

 

Any particular reason you didn't mention the Knoblauch trade?

[Vanimal46]

 

Yes, I was thinking someone might bring up Johan Santana. I do see his situation as analogous.

Santana was a multi-year Cy Young candidate, mind you. And for him, we got Kevin Mulvey (Who?), Deolis Guerra (Who?), Philip Humber (Who?) and 2.6 WAR from Carlos Gomez.

 

Then, we traded Gomez for 1.3 WAR of J.J. Hardy, who we traded for Jim Hoey. About him, I wish I could say, "Who?" Instead, we got worse than "Who?" We got Hoey. And he sucked.

 

I'm just afraid that if we trade Dozier we're going to end with Hoey, (Chin-Lung) Hu, and another "Who?" Oh, and sorry to be a Grinch here, but probably Cindy Lou Who as a throw-in.

There's always a risk of prospects not working out when a team trades for them. Billy Smith was thrown into a no win proposition for the Johan trade... TR leaves the team abruptly, and everyone including their grandmothers knew Johan needed to be traded.

 

BUT, sometimes that "Who?" in the trade return becomes Thor for the Mets, or Kluber, or Arrieta. And I trust Falvey and Co. more than Billy Smith. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Yes, I was thinking someone might bring up Johan Santana. I do see his situation as analogous.

 

The Santana situation was handled poorly, but mainly because we were still a contending team and draft pick FA compensation was better back then.  Also Santana had a full no-trade clause which he was leveraging.

 

Yes, we still didn't pick a great package, but those are 3 pretty huge factors that don't apply at all to the  current Dozier situation.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I like the cat pun Want to join us next week on "Cat Talk" with Dinger and Van?

I am only available to listen between 4:30 and 5:30 so I am assuming that's when Cat Talk will go on the air.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I am only available to listen between 4:30 and 5:30 so I am assuming that's when Cat Talk will go on the air.

 

Darn! That's the one time I catn't listen.....

[Teflon]

 

With the offseason in full swing, the refueling begins on Minnesota Twins fans hope-tanks. 

 

Where can I get one of those "hope-tanks?" Is it like a hope-chest? I see those in Brides magazines all the time.  

[laloesch]

Twins get De Leon, Alvarez and Buehler.  Dodgers get Dozier and keep their prized prospect (Urias).  Would that be a fair deal for both sides?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Twins get De Leon, Alvarez and Buehler.  Dodgers get Dozier and keep their prized prospect (Urias).  Would that be a fair deal for both sides?

 

Way too good for the Twins, I think.

 

If they get both De Leon and Alvarez, the Twins' brass should be thanked, a lot.

[laloesch]

 

Way too good for the Twins, I think.

 

If they get both De Leon and Alvarez, the Twins' brass should be thanked, a lot.

 

What if the Twins threw in Rosario to sweeten the deal?  Dodgers need outfielders, plus Rosario could backup 2nd.

[Mike Sixel]

 

What if the Twins threw in Rosario to sweeten the deal?  Dodgers need outfielders, plus Rosario could backup 2nd.

 

That seems more fair, and I've suggested ESan, Dozier, and Stewart in a similar deal.....

[laloesch]

 

That seems more fair, and I've suggested ESan, Dozier, and Stewart in a similar deal.....

 

 

I wonder if a deal gets done sometime tomorrow.  

[Vanimal46]

 

Darn! That's the one time I catn't listen.....

Oh man, is that the same time you're painting that wall and watching it dry properly? Catching flack from your wife that your sock drawer is messy? 

[Platoon]

You were doing good until you got down to the Mauer talk, especially the point about Dozier being hot and cold and it being a gamble to wait until the 2017 trade deadline. Get it done now, get some starting pitching back.

 

Mauer is not going anywhere. Hometown hero, he grew up here, his wife is from here, he's not going to request or accept a trade. And he's still a better first basemen than anybody else on the Twins roster, and better than a lot of other major league first basemen. There are some things in life you just have to grin and bear it, let time pass, this is one of them. Only two more years, only two more years, only two more years. Keep repeating that to yourself.

Pre-begging forgiveness from the lady in Chicago, I would like to clarify a point on the person which we are not allowed to reference. While I wont identify him by name, he plays first base, used to catch, and is from St. Paul. My point on said player we can't mention is that contractually there is only one option available. I was not endorsing or suggesting it. Actually I was trying to make a point whilst trying to be polite, that discussions over the future of this person are a waste of digital ink. (As my post will most likely be construed by some) That said, I am sure Whine Line, uncumbered by the philosophy of sticking to any one topic, will explore this in depth. Sadly that's the same time I will be listening to my tape of Sid Hartmans greatest interviews.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

Darn! That's the one time I catn't listen.....

I'll be in my car listening at 4:30 in the afternoon, with that show on, purring like a kitten

 

 

* also, catn't?  ISWYDT

[Vanimal46]

 

I'll be in my car listening at 4:30 in the afternoon, with that show on, purring like a kitten

 

 

* also, catn't?  ISWYDT

Ironically, we just signed the contract to appear on 104.7 The PURR

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

What if the Twins threw in Rosario to sweeten the deal?  Dodgers need outfielders, plus Rosario could backup 2nd.

Dodgers need outfielders?  Pederson, Puig, Thompson, and Tholes were all better than Rosario last year, both offensively and defensively per B-Ref OPS and Rfield.  They still have Van Slyke too who has better career numbers than Rosario despite losing much of 2016 to injury. There's room to add another option out there, but Rosario probably isn't worth much to them.

 

Backup 2B is also meaningless, the Dodgers would still have to carry a utility infielder who would be far better with the glove than Rosario who hasn't played the position at all in over 2 years, and hasn't played it with any regularity for over 3.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Ironically, we just signed the contract to appear on 104.7 The PURR

I was hoping you would bump Barreiro but that works too.

 

 

oh and I am agnostic about trading Dozier

 

#OnTopic

[Lee-The-Twins-Fan]

 

Twins get De Leon, Alvarez and Buehler.  Dodgers get Dozier and keep their prized prospect (Urias).  Would that be a fair deal for both sides?

No, it wouldn't. 

 

De Leon is a good pitcher, in AAA, and could jump into Twins rotation. The other two are in 'A' ball – won't be up for at least two years. 

 

The Twins would need both Urias and De Leon to make this work. And the Dodgers will not likely part with both for Dozier. 

 

People keep talking in this thread about how the time to trade for Dozier is now, and how we need multiple prospects to make it work. 

 

If the Twins trade Dozier, it should be for two starting pitchers who can help the team NOW. Not two years down the road. 

 

If the Twins can't get good pitchers to put into the lineup NOW, what's the point? They'll continue to struggle in 2017 and 2018 – with or without Brian Dozier. In that case, trading him will do no good. If one AAA pitcher and two Class A pitchers are the return, yes, it might help in three years, but our own pitchers might help in three years. Yes BD would be gone by then, but trading him for De Leon, Alvarez and Buehler won't help the team much in 2017 and 2018, and BD would be gone anyway.

 

There's more to getting this team back to the playoffs than just the trading of one or two players. I think the Twins leadership is right to be cautious and take their time. Don't just pull the trigger on the first trade opportunity. Dozier has real value – and I probably would have been willing to trade him straight up for an established No. 1 starter (like Sale). But not for prospects that won't help for a couple of years.

 

I'm not against trading Dozier, but it has to be the RIGHT deal. The Twins should not trade him just because he has value now. They have to get great value back – and the other team (or teams) have to be willing to trade that value – otherwise, he's just as valuable in the Twins lineup.

[laloesch]

 

No, it wouldn't. 

 

De Leon is a good pitcher, in AAA, and could jump into Twins rotation. The other two are in 'A' ball – won't be up for at least two years. 

 

The Twins would need both Urias and De Leon to make this work. And the Dodgers will not likely part with both for Dozier. 

 

People keep talking in this thread about how the time to trade for Dozier is now, and how we need multiple prospects to make it work. 

 

If the Twins trade Dozier, it should be for two starting pitchers who can help the team NOW. Not two years down the road. 

 

If the Twins can't get good pitchers to put into the lineup NOW, what's the point? They'll continue to struggle in 2017 and 2018 – with or without Brian Dozier. In that case, trading him will do no good. If one AAA pitcher and two Class A pitchers are the return, yes, it might help in three years, but our own pitchers might help in three years. Yes BD would be gone by then, but trading him for De Leon, Alvarez and Buehler won't help the team much in 2017 and 2018, and BD would be gone anyway.

 

There's more to getting this team back to the playoffs than just the trading of one or two players. I think the Twins leadership is right to be cautious and take their time. Don't just pull the trigger on the first trade opportunity. Dozier has real value – and I probably would have been willing to trade him straight up for an established No. 1 starter (like Sale). But not for prospects that won't help for a couple of years.

 

I'm not against trading Dozier, but it has to be the RIGHT deal. The Twins should not trade him just because he has value now. They have to get great value back – and the other team (or teams) have to be willing to trade that value – otherwise, he's just as valuable in the Twins lineup.

 

Looks like we'll soon find out

[Platoon]

Ironically, we just signed the contract to appear on 104.7 The PURR

Ironically? That you will be on 104.7 The PURR? Or, ironically that anyone would sign Whine Line to a contract? Wait, that would not be ironic, that would be puzzling. :). All kidding aside, when I travel anywhere outside NE Mpls The PURR quits purring. Any chance WL could get picked up by Sirius/XM as I am moving to Canada on 1/20/17.

[laloesch]

 

Ironically? That you will be on 104.7 The PURR? Or, ironically that anyone would sign Whine Line to a contract? Wait, that would not be ironic, that would be puzzling. :). All kidding aside, when I travel anywhere outside NE Mpls The PURR quits purring. Any chance WL could get picked up by Sirius/XM as I am moving to Canada on 1/20/17.

 

boohhh

[Platoon]

boohhh

Cannot believe anyone would be upset about Whine Line getting The PURR to carry that award winning show. Next to Sid and 'Sports Hero' WL is by far the most informative radio broadcast in St. Paul Park!

[IndianaTwin]

 

No, it wouldn't. 

 

De Leon is a good pitcher, in AAA, and could jump into Twins rotation. The other two are in 'A' ball – won't be up for at least two years. 

 

The Twins would need both Urias and De Leon to make this work. And the Dodgers will not likely part with both for Dozier. 

 

People keep talking in this thread about how the time to trade for Dozier is now, and how we need multiple prospects to make it work. 

 

If the Twins trade Dozier, it should be for two starting pitchers who can help the team NOW. Not two years down the road. 

 

If the Twins can't get good pitchers to put into the lineup NOW, what's the point? They'll continue to struggle in 2017 and 2018 – with or without Brian Dozier. In that case, trading him will do no good. If one AAA pitcher and two Class A pitchers are the return, yes, it might help in three years, but our own pitchers might help in three years. Yes BD would be gone by then, but trading him for De Leon, Alvarez and Buehler won't help the team much in 2017 and 2018, and BD would be gone anyway.

 

There's more to getting this team back to the playoffs than just the trading of one or two players. I think the Twins leadership is right to be cautious and take their time. Don't just pull the trigger on the first trade opportunity. Dozier has real value – and I probably would have been willing to trade him straight up for an established No. 1 starter (like Sale). But not for prospects that won't help for a couple of years.

 

I'm not against trading Dozier, but it has to be the RIGHT deal. The Twins should not trade him just because he has value now. They have to get great value back – and the other team (or teams) have to be willing to trade that value – otherwise, he's just as valuable in the Twins lineup.

 

Bingo -- I agree it has to be talent that can help now (and into the reasonable future). I had a couple of long posts in which people responded to specific points. I was going to respond, but then we thought the trade was going to be completed in 24 hours, so I figured it was a moot point.

 

Rather than quoting each, I'll try to respond to several:

 

• On my point about winning the Pierzynski trade. We won the trade by getting Nathan, a pitcher already in the majors who the Twins identified as having the potential to play a higher-leverage role than he was currently in. We also got the Giants to throw in two lottery picks in Liriano and Bonser. One of those lottery picks came through in a big way, turning the trade into the lopsided result it was. But the focus of the trade was getting Nathan as an immediate help.
• On my distinction between guys who were traded with some major league experience or during the season vs. those traded with no experience. That had to do with where they are in the development curve. My point is that the odds of minor leaguers who are traded with no experience making it big are not that great. I would rather target guys who are further along than guys who are high on prospect lists. I especially prefer not to target prospects when they are pitchers, because pitching prospects are even more fickle than hitting prospects. Rizzo was received in trade as a prospect, but he already had 128 at bats, which can be huge. I acknowledge that amidst all the Urias hype this season, I had missed that DeLeon has actually had major league time and is a little further along than I realized. My apologies. That softens my stance on him as the centerpiece, though just a little, for reasons I'll come back to.
• Another noted that sometimes the prospect turns into Thor, Kluber, or Arrieta.
  • Thor the Prospect was part of a big trade, and he certainly was a key part of the trade. But he also came with a starting catcher who was not far removed from an all-star season, so the Mets received MLB-ready talent as well. Even if Thor didn't come through, the Mets would have received something of value that could help the major league team.
  • Kluber was part of a three-team trade, and I don't have a great read on it. He certainly wasn't highly regarded by anyone at the time. He wasn't even in the Padres Top 30 prospects. Kudos to the Indians for picking Kluber out of Double A, but from what I can read, it wasn't so much that they were pursuing Kluber as figuring that they needed to get something in exchange for the salary dump on Jake Westbrook. After some research, they picked Kluber over some other flotsam. But again, I don't have a good recollection, so that may be a misreading.
  • But Arrieta wasn't a prospect. See next point.
• Arietta was a suspect by the time he was traded. He had been highly regarded as a prospect when he came up with Orioles, but he hadn't shown it in his 64 starts and the Orioles gave up on him. The astute Cubs swooped in to get him and Pedro Strop for Scott Feldman and Steve Clevenger, neither of which is Brian Dozier.

In fact, Arrieta is exactly the kind of guy I'd prefer to target rather than prospects. Pitchers very often take a while to develop, as "Markos" similarly noted over in the "Less is More" post. Rick Porcello is another trade success story. He was highly thought of as a rookie, but struggled in 180(!) starts with the Tigers before being the piece that the Red Sox got when they wanted to trade Cespedes rather than lose him. The Red Sox did their homework and found a pitcher they could straighten out.

 

So rather than going after a DeLeon and lottery picks and letting DeLeon spend 50-100 starts figuring it out (IF he ever does), I'd rather that they go after the next Arrieta or Porcello (or, I'm wondering, was Falvey part of the group that figured out that Kluber is the Padres loser to go after?).

 

Who might that be? Here are a few names that come to mind. Guys like Carlos Rodon, Henry Owens, Eduardo Rodriguez, Yordano Ventura, Luis Severino, Mike Foltynewicz, Brandon Finnegan, and Taijuan Walker are all guys who were highly thought of and have had between 16 and 93 starts in the majors, but they haven't quite figured it out yet. Maybe even Shelby Miller, who has 122 starts and still looks good at times. Undoubtedly there are others. Maybe it's even a Joe Nathan-type who has been underutilized. Kevin Siegrist as our new closer, anyone? How about if he came with Jhonny Peralta, at least if Peralta can still play short? A Tommy John guy like Zach Wheeler along with Wilmer Flores?

 

I haven't considered whether these particular teams are a logical trade partner -- that's not my point. I'm just trying to identify the typology. If the Diamondbacks can get Walker for Jean Segura, I think the Twins can do better, perhaps in terms of talent, but definitely in terms of success likelihood. And yes, ask for the lottery pick in the process that might turn into the next Francisco Liriano (but sure, could just as likely could end up being the next Boof Bonser).

 

We might not get the No. 1 that Urias/DeLeon MIGHT be, but then again we might. And I'd be glad to end up with a rotation that includes five No. 2s. If Falvey is smart enough to figure out who the next Arrieta is, go for it, particularly if it comes with something more. But if not, don't discount that Dozier will still be pretty valuable down the road, one way or another.

[ashbury]

My feeling, which I've never tried to study systematically, is that when teams trade for a stud prospect, they try to lessen the pressure on that player by making the trade be for other pieces who will help right away. That gives the team's marketing department something positive to say while the young guy is still developing.

 

Supposing that the Twins could pry away Urias for Dozier plus ESan plus two good prospects, I'm not sure it would be good for Urias's development, unless he is of an extraordinary makeup. A lot of pressure on someone in his early twenties. Even though he does have a year under his belt now.

 

So, as regards the AJ trade, I recall Liriano as the difficult piece to get the Giants to include. But he was not MLB ready, making his trade value lower, so it was possible to package him with other players for AJ. Nathan was available as a failed starter, and the Twins were not thinking outside the box to put him in the 'pen - the Giants had already done so for a year. It was a good trade for both sides, except the Giants bollixed up their end of the trade in conjunction with AJ's allegedly prickly personality.

 

Getting a really good reliever with big league experience is a whale of a lot easier than getting a really good starter with big league experience. Nathan wasn't the centerpiece. Nathan was the marketing piece. He turned out well.

 

As for going after the next Arrieta or Kluber, that's good too. An all-of-the-above strategy for finding talent is better than one true way. The problem with finding the next "pony in the pile" is that it consumes a lot of roster space, which in many ways is the ultimate scarce resource. You don't just find Arrieta and say "there, done", you acquire several like him continually and use the 25-man to sort things out. In fact, finding such guys was apparently Terry Ryan's fond dream with all his make-good contract offers, and whether by bad luck or bad design (signing rather than trading) or bad scouting it just never seemed to pay off for him.

[HitInAPinch]

 

We never sell high. Never. We ALWAYS wait until a player slides backward before selling low or letting him walk.

 

This needs to change now. It's awesome that Brian Dozier is a guy we want our kids to be like, but that should literally factor 0% into a decision as to whether to trade.

 

This is the hand we've been dealt. Two more controllable, cheap years on Dozier. Career year in 2016. Difficult to see us competing in the next two years. Yes, if any of these factors were somewhat changed, maybe, MAYBE, you lean more toward keeping him.

 

But this is a no-brainer. An absolute no-brainer. Trade the man.

 

Oh, and you can't trade or cut Joe Mauer and use the money elsewhere. Doesn't work that way. And you can't 'restructure' a contract. This is baseball, not football. And he's signed through 2018, not 2019.

 

As was earlier said, appreciate the passion, but disagree wholeheartedly.

The Twins have been pretty high on the loyalty-thing.  Without any evidence, I'm betting the new guys won't follow that model. 

 

Mauer:  Pretty sure that contract is guaranteed.  What team would take on that contract on a declining player.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Maybe Dave's source was correct, before Falvey and Levine discovered this thread and were moved by the OP's passionate plea?