Dozier Trade Discussion Thread

[Mike Sixel]

 

You talk like this trade wouldn't result in more losses the next two years.

 

Also, it's not like De Leon is a sure thing. I like him, good prospect, accept him as the headliner, but if it is just him as the significant prospect, that is a huge risk. Probably a better chance it is a step back for the franchise than a step forward.

 

Up to the leadership to find other ways to add pitching.

 

I'm not actually convinced if they got 2 near MLB SPs that there would be more losing in the next two years. I'm also not seeing how they add more arms in the next 2 years. They will have to rely on internal growth and luck. This was/is their best chance to add talent.

 

Somehow other teams have managed to trade assets and get prospects that are good/great. We are now 5 year into being bad, and have not pulled off one good trade.

[Otto von Ballpark]

My assumption was that is was some of the names you mentioned in the second paragraph and it wasn't enough for the Twins.

Sure, but it would be nice to know. For example, De Leon plus Calhoun and Sheffield is a lot different than De Leon plus two C prospects.

[nicksaviking]

 

You mean the same criticism they faced when they didn't sign Greinke last year? The same year where they were just 2 wins away from the WS? One player doesn't ruin your season. Even when the best pitcher in the league went down, Kershaw, the Dodger managed to take first place in their division. 

 

Interesting point. I wonder if they would have only been two wins away from the WS had they signed Greinke last year.

 

With Kershaw going game 2, Greinke maybe gets game 1 and 4? Those two didn't work out so well for LA.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Sure, but it would be nice to know. For example, De Leon plus Calhoun and Sheffield is a lot different than De Leon plus two C prospects.

Not really. Is Sheffield anything special to you?

 

If the point of trading Dozier is to improve starting pitching, both your deals are essentially 1:1 Dozier for De Leon, in my opinion.

[mazeville]

 

Fwiw: just sent that tweet and message to source, they replied "alvarez definitely was in the offer and remains in offer along with JDL, issue has and remains Twins insistence on a third asset"

Not trying to start an argument, just passing on the info.

 

I have to say that if the Dodgers offered DeLeon and Alvarez for Dozier and the Twins wouldn't do it and the deal died as a result then ... well ... the Twins are being stupid.

 

I get they'd want a lot for Dozier. But there comes a point where you have to ask whether you're being too demanding. JDL + Alvarez would be a great haul for Dozier, in my opinion. 

[Strato Guy]

http://dodgerblue.com/dodgers-rumors-la-refused-include-brock-stewart-potential-brian-dozier-twins-trade/2017/01/12/ 

 

At Dodger Blue, they ware saying that Stewart was not offered. I get the feeling that the Dodgers think much more highly of De Leon than the Twins do. That means they would be probably be willing to give better prospects in a trade involving Stewart as opposed to De Leon. IMO, I am almost as high on Stewart as DeLeon. At this point, the Twins and Dodgers maybe could switch gears, start over with Stewart as the center piece of a potential trade.

[gunnarthor]

 

http://dodgerblue.com/dodgers-rumors-la-refused-include-brock-stewart-potential-brian-dozier-twins-trade/2017/01/12/ 

 

At Dodger Blue, they ware saying that Stewart was not offered. I get the feeling that the Dodgers think much more highly of De Leon than the Twins do. That means they would be probably be willing to give better prospects in a trade involving Stewart as opposed to De Leon. IMO, I am almost as high on Stewart as DeLeon. At this point, the Twins and Dodgers maybe could switch gears, start over with Stewart as the center piece of a potential trade.

I don't think many people view Stewart as a potential headliner.  Most scouting reports still list him as a backend arm.  De Leon is clearly the better pitcher.  

[drjim]

 

Sure, but it would be nice to know. For example, De Leon plus Calhoun and Sheffield is a lot different than De Leon plus two C prospects.

 

Absolutely. I really am curious what the Twins FO needs to get to move Dozier.

 

I don't think De Leon, Calhoun, Sheffield would do it for me.

[Nick Nelson]

 

Believe what you want Nick. Seems weird though since I personally reached out to you and gave you info on my source (to prove it legit)

Dustin was one of the guys over here trying to call me out on TwinsDaily, and then bashing me on twitter (I had to block him)

Dustin works for a LAD blog and not a national reporter or real media member, so why is his word so much more believable then mine Nick?

It's not about the credibility of you or him as people, it's about the credibility of the reports. I'm sorry but I just don't believe that the Twins are turning down a package including both JDL and Alvarez, and there has been no indication from any actual reporter that Alvarez has been included in any offer. 

[drjim]

 

http://dodgerblue.com/dodgers-rumors-la-refused-include-brock-stewart-potential-brian-dozier-twins-trade/2017/01/12/ 

 

At Dodger Blue, they ware saying that Stewart was not offered. I get the feeling that the Dodgers think much more highly of De Leon than the Twins do. That means they would be probably be willing to give better prospects in a trade involving Stewart as opposed to De Leon. IMO, I am almost as high on Stewart as DeLeon. At this point, the Twins and Dodgers maybe could switch gears, start over with Stewart as the center piece of a potential trade.

 

Not surprised, the Dodgers need the AAA depth. I never really bought a De Leon and Stewart package. I think there are plenty of other pieces the Twins could accept instead.

[drjim]

 

I'm not actually convinced if they got 2 near MLB SPs that there would be more losing in the next two years. I'm also not seeing how they add more arms in the next 2 years. They will have to rely on internal growth and luck. This was/is their best chance to add talent.

 

Somehow other teams have managed to trade assets and get prospects that are good/great. We are now 5 year into being bad, and have not pulled off one good trade.

 

Where are they getting the second pitcher in this scenario? And over that time they would again be short a middle infielder.

 

The team will be better next year just by returning to the mean, but trading Dozier for De Leon and a prospect or two that won't significantly contribute over the next two years isn't going to make them better over that time frame. Doesn't mean it's a bad move for the long term of the franchise.

[Jerr]

 

Nah, I think it is good for us all to see things play out in a positive way now and then.

After seeing them possibly "beer up" together, I now say keep it here. They argue again?????

 

To the PM they go

[Strato Guy]

 

I don't think many people view Stewart as a potential headliner.  Most scouting reports still list him as a backend arm.  De Leon is clearly the better pitcher.  

Well, De Leon has better POTENTIAL, and is a better prospect. At this point, I don't think he is a better pitcher. If Stewart improves his breaking pitch(s), he could be just as good as De Leon. My bigger point, though, is that the Twins could get better prospects in a trade that includes Stewart as opposed to De Leon. That might make for a better trade.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Where are they getting the second pitcher in this scenario? And over that time they would again be short a middle infielder.

 

The team will be better next year just by returning to the mean, but trading Dozier for De Leon and a prospect or two that won't significantly contribute over the next two years isn't going to make them better over that time frame. Doesn't mean it's a bad move for the long term of the franchise.

 

explain how keeping Dozier, and getting nothing, is good in the long term. Putting aside a discussion of a fair price, how does Dozier leaving in 2 years help them in the long term?

[DodgerFan1234]

Interesting point. I wonder if they would have only been two wins away from the WS had they signed Greinke last year.

 

With Kershaw going game 2, Greinke maybe gets game 1 and 4? Those two didn't work out so well for LA.

Greinke did not have the best year last year. The Dodgers not getting to the WS had more to do with MLB fixing game 4 in Cubs favor than Greinke. Calling AGon (clearly safe) out with the Dodgers having both the lead in the game and series was the largest single momentum shift in the playoffs.

 

Hill was a fine and capable replacement for Greinke in the playoffs. The thing that honestly puts the Dodgers over the hump next year more than Dozier is health. The great thing about health, is that it's free if it happens. The combo of Kershaw, Hill and Urias need to make more than 42 combined starts (as they did in 2016). The Dodgers need to throw less than 15 pitchers in a season, leaning heavily on the likes of Bud Norris and scrubs like Tepesch

[gunnarthor]

 

explain how keeping Dozier, and getting nothing, is good in the long term. Putting aside a discussion of a fair price, how does Dozier leaving in 2 years help them in the long term?

Why are we punting on 2017 and 2018?  How does Sano and Buxton leaving us after 2021 make us better?  Shouldn't we trade them too so we can get a group of prospects that is perfectly aligned at some random point in the future?

[drjim]

 

explain how keeping Dozier, and getting nothing, is good in the long term. Putting aside a discussion of a fair price, how does Dozier leaving in 2 years help them in the long term?

 

I have never accepted that premise. Not trading him now does not preclude a future trade.

 

But keeping him is still clearly better than making a bad trade, that has too light a return, and doesn't make the team better in the future. A trade is not automatically a win for the Twins in the future. De Leon is not a sure thing.

 

If there is no trade, winning more games season to season is always a positive, even more when there has been such a stretch of lousy play and they are trying to break in younger players into something of a winning situation.

 

They can also extend Dozier beyond two years. 

 

And of course, all of this has been discussed many times over. None of the basic facts have changed. For the right price trading Dozier is a good move. Short of that, keeping him is not a disaster. And a bad trade is the worst of all worlds.

[markos]

 

I'm not actually convinced if they got 2 near MLB SPs that there would be more losing in the next two years. I'm also not seeing how they add more arms in the next 2 years. They will have to rely on internal growth and luck. This was/is their best chance to add talent.

 

Somehow other teams have managed to trade assets and get prospects that are good/great. We are now 5 year into being bad, and have not pulled off one good trade.

But at a certain level, the Twins need to rely on internal growth and luck for the majority of their pitching improvement regardless of any Dozier trade.

 

This is my thought process (using back-of-the-envelope calculations and fWAR). Last year, the Twins pitching staff managed 8 fWAR, 3rd worst in the league. Average pitching WAR is 16; above-average is 20+. Somehow between today and 2019, the Twins need to lift the talent level of their pitching staff by 8-12 WAR. Actually, more than that, because we can be pretty confident that Santana won't be providing 3+ WAR in 2019. So let's say 10-14 WAR. Even an optimistic projection of a Dozier trade is only providing 5-6 WAR per season in 2019. More likely, it is probably closer to 3-4 WAR. So basically, a Dozier trade is only going to fix 25%-50% of the pitching problem. The majority of the lift to go from terrible to above-average needs to be done outside of the Dozier trade.

 

This is why, in my opinion, the most important thing that the new front office can do is to fix the pitcher development program for the organization. Even if the Dozier-for-De Leon trade actually happens and De Leon becomes a bona-fide ace, it won't matter unless the Twins can find/develop 2-3 other above-average starters and 3-4 above-average bullpen arms. Trading Dozier for pitching is neither necessary nor sufficient for having an above-average pitching staff in 2019. It could certainly help on the margins, but there is no way that it alone bridges the current gap in talent.

[Mike Sixel]

 

But at a certain level, the Twins need to rely on internal growth and luck for the majority of their pitching improvement regardless of any Dozier trade.

 

This is my thought process (using back-of-the-envelope calculations and fWAR). Last year, the Twins pitching staff managed 8 fWAR, 3rd worst in the league. Average pitching WAR is 16; above-average is 20+. Somehow between today and 2019, the Twins need to lift the talent level of their pitching staff by 8-12 WAR. Actually, more than that, because we can be pretty confident that Santana won't be providing 3+ WAR in 2019. So let's say 10-14 WAR. Even an optimistic projection of a Dozier trade is only providing 5-6 WAR per season in 2019. More likely, it is probably closer to 3-4 WAR. So basically, a Dozier trade is only going to fix 25%-50% of the pitching problem. The majority of the lift to go from terrible to above-average needs to be done outside of the Dozier trade.

 

This is why, in my opinion, the most important thing that the new front office can do is to fix the pitcher development program for the organization. Even if the Dozier-for-De Leon trade actually happens and De Leon becomes a bona-fide ace, it won't matter unless the Twins can find/develop 2-3 other above-average starters and 3-4 above-average bullpen arms. Trading Dozier for pitching is neither necessary nor sufficient for having an above-average pitching staff in 2019. It could certainly help on the margins, but there is no way that it alone bridges the current gap in talent.

 

Of course it won't matter, but it will be even harder if you don't add 2-4 WAR in a trade.....If someone thinks I, or anyone, is arguing one trade will fix things, they are arguing a straw men.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Hill was a fine and capable replacement for Greinke in the playoffs. The thing that honestly puts the Dodgers over the hump next year more than Dozier is health. The great thing about health, is that it's free if it happens. The combo of Kershaw, Hill and Urias need to make more than 42 combined starts (as they did in 2016). The Dodgers need to throw less than 15 pitchers in a season, leaning heavily on the likes of Bud Norris and scrubs like Tepesch . Their righty batters that crush lefties (Scott Van Slyke and Trayce Thompson) will also hopefully be healthy. So health...health is greater to the Dodgers than any name in this thread.

 

No team in history has been unaffected by injury, particularly when it comes to pitchers. That's why the Dodgers are reluctant to part with pitching depth. 

[Taildragger8791]

 

Why are we punting on 2017 and 2018?  How does Sano and Buxton leaving us after 2021 make us better?  Shouldn't we trade them too so we can get a group of prospects that is perfectly aligned at some random point in the future?

 

Not really an equal comparison. Buxton and Sano are super young and extendable, Dozier will be 31 going on 32 the season following this contract. Pretty much a guarantee he walks because the Twins won't pay him $15+ million at that point. And we have a good player ready to slot into his defensive position.

 

And 2017 is a pipe dream to compete because we have essentially the same pitching staff that just finished dead last in baseball again. It would take several long-shot circumstances all going extremely right to correct that. And we don't exactly play in a powder puff division, either.

 

Obligatory disclaimer to avoid a straw-man response: Of course I don't advocate trading Dozier at all costs just to get rid of him, but it's pretty undeniable that the rebuild is going to be delayed/weakened if we can't flip him for pitching. Whether that's due to uncontrollable circumstances or the Twins' own mistakes, it doesn't change that fact.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

This is my thought process (using back-of-the-envelope calculations and fWAR). Last year, the Twins pitching staff managed 8 fWAR, 3rd worst in the league. Average pitching WAR is 16; above-average is 20+. Somehow between today and 2019, the Twins need to lift the talent level of their pitching staff by 8-12 WAR. Actually, more than that, because we can be pretty confident that Santana won't be providing 3+ WAR in 2019. So let's say 10-14 WAR. Even an optimistic projection of a Dozier trade is only providing 5-6 WAR per season in 2019. More likely, it is probably closer to 3-4 WAR. So basically, a Dozier trade is only going to fix 25%-50% of the pitching problem. The majority of the lift to go from terrible to above-average needs to be done outside of the Dozier trade.

While I agree with the general idea here, it appears you're adding a starting pitcher from a baseline of 0 WAR.

 

That simply isn't the case. The Twins had two starters - Duffey and Berrios - that posted a bWAR of -1.6 and -1.7, respectively.

 

That's one of the major reasons I wanted to see a Dozier trade. Even if you get a middling 3 WAR pitcher in return, the net gain is actually close to 5 WAR.

[gunnarthor]

 

 

And 2017 is a pipe dream to compete because we have essentially the same pitching staff that just finished dead last in baseball again. It would take several long-shot circumstances all going extremely right to correct that. And we don't exactly play in a powder puff division, either.

 

Well, that's sorta true.  I'm really curious to see if the new FO puts its foot down and gets Duffey into the bullpen and May into the rotation.  But Milone, Meyer, Dean, Nolasco and Albers are gone, so that's at least 45 starts (25%) that will be taken by new arms.  If Duffey is moved to the pen, that's another 26 starts that will be by someone else.  We all loved De Leon but Berrios was a better regarded prospect and is younger, so we should expect him to be good at some time.  Santiago and Santana and Gibson will probably be locks for the rotation early.  They amassed only 4.6 WAR total in 66 starts last year (about 33%).  I have no idea how they'll do but all three have had ML success fairly recently.  With improved pitch framing and OF defense they should be better than that as a group - both in starts and WAR.  

 

 

[markos]

 

While I agree with the general idea here, it appears you're adding a starting pitcher from a baseline of 0 WAR.

 

That simply isn't the case. The Twins had two starters - Duffey and Berrios - that posted a bWAR of -1.6 and -1.7, respectively.

 

That's one of the major reasons I wanted to see a Dozier trade. Even if you get a middling 3 WAR pitcher in return, the net gain is actually close to 5 WAR.

If you use bWAR instead of fWAR, that just lowers the baseline. Last year the Twins only had 2 bWAR, so they need to improve by 14 WAR to get to league average and ~18 WAR to be above-average. And Santana's contribution is larger as well (4 bWAR). So using those numbers, they need to find 17-21 WAR worth of improvement. The underlying percentages don't end up changing very much - an solid return for Dozier will only fix ~33% of the problem.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If you use bWAR instead of fWAR, that just lowers the baseline. Last year the Twins only had 2 bWAR, so they need to improve by 14 WAR to get to league average and ~18 WAR to be above-average. And Santana's contribution is larger as well (4 bWAR). So using those numbers, they need to find 17-21 WAR worth of improvement. The underlying percentages don't end up changing very much - an solid return for Dozier will only fix ~33% of the problem.

I generally agree. The pitching staff isn't going to be fixed with one guy. The Twins need others to step forward as well: Berrios, May, Burdi, Jay, Gonsalves, etc.

 

Thankfully, they have the arms coming... They're not spectacular but enough of them could be solid to drag the pitching staff to respectability (though external help is needed as well).

[Mike Sixel]

 

If you use bWAR instead of fWAR, that just lowers the baseline. Last year the Twins only had 2 bWAR, so they need to improve by 14 WAR to get to league average and ~18 WAR to be above-average. And Santana's contribution is larger as well (4 bWAR). So using those numbers, they need to find 17-21 WAR worth of improvement. The underlying percentages don't end up changing very much - an solid return for Dozier will only fix ~33% of the problem.

 

which is why you need more SP prospects, not more bats....

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Not really. Is Sheffield anything special to you?

If the point of trading Dozier is to improve starting pitching, both your deals are essentially 1:1 Dozier for De Leon, in my opinion.

Calhoun and Sheffield (and Verdugo, another name not frequently mentioned) are respectively rated equal or better prospects than Buehler and Stewart, according to Sickels, Fangraphs, etc.

 

I didn't necessarily mean it would be enough to pull the trigger, but those names are very different than C prospects or filler.  Knowing their inclusion or exclusion would help us better gauge Dozier's current/future market.

 

Even if the preferred target is starting pitching, there has to be some "best player available" considerations here too, especially for second or third pieces in the trade.

[Taildragger8791]

 

Well, that's sorta true.  I'm really curious to see if the new FO puts its foot down and gets Duffey into the bullpen and May into the rotation.  But Milone, Meyer, Dean, Nolasco and Albers are gone, so that's at least 45 starts (25%) that will be taken by new arms.  If Duffey is moved to the pen, that's another 26 starts that will be by someone else.  We all loved De Leon but Berrios was a better regarded prospect and is younger, so we should expect him to be good at some time.  Santiago and Santana and Gibson will probably be locks for the rotation early.  They amassed only 4.6 WAR total in 66 starts last year (about 33%).  I have no idea how they'll do but all three have had ML success fairly recently.  With improved pitch framing and OF defense they should be better than that as a group - both in starts and WAR.  

 

I agree there are some changes occurring which opens the opportunity for improvement. However, that still depends on a bunch of circumstances having the best reasonable outcome, and even then the ceiling is limited the candidates we'll be cycling through this year. All it takes is something like Molitor giving a long leash and 100 innings to a hobbled Hughes to undo a good chunk of that opportunity. If we shave a full run off our ERA, a monumental improvement, we'd still only be back to middle-of-the-pack. It's a steep climb to make in one season.

[Squirrel]

 

Of course it won't matter, but it will be even harder if you don't add 2-4 WAR in a trade.....If someone thinks I, or anyone, is arguing one trade will fix things, they are arguing a straw men.

I don't think that's the argument ... I think the argument is how much will it help ... and that will depend on the return. And that's where we all disagree and I don't think there's a bridge large enough to connect us.

[gunnarthor]

 

I agree there are some changes occurring which opens the opportunity for improvement. However, that still depends on a bunch of circumstances having the best reasonable outcome, and even then the ceiling is limited the candidates we'll be cycling through this year. All it takes is something like Molitor giving a long leash and 100 innings to a hobbled Hughes to undo a good chunk of that opportunity. If we shave a full run off our ERA, a monumental improvement, we'd still only be back to middle-of-the-pack. It's a steep climb to make in one season.

Oh, sure.  But a big help can just come from not being bad.  Duffey and Berrios combined for 40 starts and a -3.3 WAR.  If those 40 starts can somehow turn into just 2 WAR, that's a 5 WAR increase.  

 

In any event, I've said multiple times that the Twins offensive core is pretty good, although another bat would be fun.  The pitching staff also has potential but I'm not sure Molitor is the right manager to get to that potential.