Dozier Trade Discussion Thread

[TheLeviathan]

 

By what metric?  By WAR, Dozier has been the better player, by years of control, Dozier is more valuable.  Dozier is more durable. If you want to argue that catchers have more value because they're catchers, fine, but LuCroy was also coming off of concussion injuries so that should limit it somewhat. Even if you think LuCroy is more valuable, it can't be that much more valuable.  Maybe instead of a top 15, top 50 and AAAA type, you think Dozier is worth a top 30, a top 100 and a lottery ticket. 

 

Lucroy plays catcher.  I think you thoroughly underestimate how big of a factor that is.  Over the last four years only 5 catchers have a WAR over 10 and he's second only to Buster Posey.  Dozier is 7th out 13 second basemen with 10 or more.

 

That's a huge difference in scarcity that is likely the reason for the lack of demand.  Lucroy is also younger and cheaper.

 

So production like Lucroy's is scarcer, he's younger, and he's owed less money.  Explain to me how that isn't the recipe for a lot more value?

[biggentleben]

There are essentially two catchers in the game right now that I would trust to provide both offensive and defensive value each season, Posey and Lucroy. That's a HUGE deal and makes him incredibly value. Here's yet another point where WAR misses the mark. Catching is incredibly valuable.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Another thing is that Lucroy had ~$9 mil less salary obligations at the time.

 

Also, if you capitalize the letter "c" in Lucroy like Matt LeCroy, I think that diminishes the perception of his value.

[USAFChief]

Another thing is that Lucroy had ~$9 mil less salary obligations at the time.

)

Along with a year less of control.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Along with a year less of control.

 

Not a year.  3 months/half a season.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Sure, there may be a supply/demand issue but that shouldn't stop the Twins from demanding a high return. You see the same value exchange in the other deals, as well. Is De Leon + junk really a better offer than Manaea and the relief arm the A's got for a half season of Zorbrist?

 

There should be no reason (or acceptance) to trade Dozier for 60 cents on the dollar.

Aaron Brooks wasn't a relief arm, he was a pretty fungible AAAA piece. That trade was pretty much all Manaea, who was rated a bit lower than De Leon too and had only 2 starts above A ball at the time.

 

Also, Zobrist was coming off averaging 6.2 bWAR over the previous 6 seasons, and had a career 117 OPS+ and postseason experience. Dozier is averaging 4.5 bWAR over the last 4 with a 108 career OPS+.

[gunnarthor]

 

Lucroy plays catcher.  I think you thoroughly underestimate how big of a factor that is.  Over the last four years only 5 catchers have a WAR over 10 and he's second only to Buster Posey.  Dozier is 7th out 13 second basemen with 10 or more.

 

That's a huge difference in scarcity that is likely the reason for the lack of demand.  Lucroy is also younger and cheaper.

 

So production like Lucroy's is scarcer, he's younger, and he's owed less money.  Explain to me how that isn't the recipe for a lot more value?

As I said, if you want to give more value to positional scarcity, fine.  I think you're giving too much there since, ignoring scarcity, Dozier is more valuable and you're ignoring the concussions that the catcher was dealing with.  Lucroy is actually older than Dozier and was traded during his age 30 season, while Dozier would have been traded going into his age 30 season.

 

But, in any event, you're still advocating that the Twins trade Dozier for 60 cents on the dollar and very arguably lesser returns than what Zorbrist, Lucroy and Gomez got. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Along with a year less of control.

3-4 months less, but same number of pennant races and potential postseasons.

[gunnarthor]

 

Aaron Brooks wasn't a relief arm, he was a pretty fungible AAAA piece. That trade was pretty much all Manaea, who was rated a bit lower than De Leon too and had only 2 starts above A ball at the time.

Also, Zobrist was coming off averaging 6.2 bWAR over the previous 6 seasons, and had a career 117 OPS+ and postseason experience. Dozier is averaging 4.5 bWAR over the last 4 with a 108 career OPS+.

Two years service time vs a couple months and he was 4 years older.  Manaea might not be as well regarded as De Leon but he might have been.  He was moving up the prospect rankings at the time and jumped into the high 40s in his last year of prospect ranking.  He wasn't that far off of De Leon.  And if the Twins can hold Dozier for a 1.5 years and get a Manaea, they should do that instead of taking a lesser offer now.

 

The point of comparing the Lucroy, Gomez, Zobrist trades (and others) isn't to find a perfect comparison but rather to show what a reasonable guess of industry value is.  I haven't found one single trade that would suggest that a guy like Dozier is worth De Leon and Stewart, for example.  Doing that would be a major discount on Dozier's value.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Even if you think LuCroy is more valuable, it can't be that much more valuable. Maybe instead of a top 15, top 50 and AAAA type, you think Dozier is worth a top 30, a top 100 and a lottery ticket.

That sounds a lot like De Leon plus Calhoun, which you have been dismissive of.

[gunnarthor]

 

 

That sounds a lot like De Leon plus Calhoun, which you have been dismissive of.

I've been dismissive of De Leon and Stewart.  I don't like Calhoun because I'm not sold on him fixing any problems for the Twins so I don't think he's a good fit in a trade - reports on his glove have been bad - and I think the Dodgers have some pitchers that would be better fits in that range. But Calhoun can hit and maybe he can play third if/when Sano moves to first? 

[markos]

 

By what metric?  By WAR, Dozier has been the better player, by years of control, Dozier is more valuable.  Dozier is more durable. If you want to argue that catchers have more value because they're catchers, fine, but LuCroy was also coming off of concussion injuries so that should limit it somewhat. Even if you think LuCroy is more valuable, it can't be that much more valuable.  Maybe instead of a top 15, top 50 and AAAA type, you think Dozier is worth a top 30, a top 100 and a lottery ticket. 

The Lucroy trade included Jeremy Jeffress, who has been an above-average reliever and has 3 seasons of team control left. 

[gunnarthor]

 

The Lucroy trade included Jeremy Jeffress, who has been an above-average reliever and has 3 seasons of team control left. 

That's true.  Jeffress isn't an inconsequential piece. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

I've been dismissive of De Leon and Stewart. I don't like Calhoun because I'm not sold on him fixing any problems for the Twins so I don't think he's a good fit in a trade - reports on his glove have been bad - and I think the Dodgers have some pitchers that would be better fits in that range. But Calhoun can hit and maybe he can play third if/when Sano moves to first?

See, to me, that's getting overly picky when you dismiss someone who matches your value target based on "fit." The Twins roster can fit just about anyone right now.

 

Also, Stewart is rising B type (okay, B- by Sickels) at arguably our biggest area of need. Like the Dodgers would resist losing both Stewart and De Leon at the same time, the Twins might need to be more receptive to that.

[markos]

 

But, in any event, you're still advocating that the Twins trade Dozier for 60 cents on the dollar and very arguably lesser returns than what Zorbrist, Lucroy and Gomez got. 

I think there is a ton of evidence from recent trades (Zobrist, Cespedes, Kendrick, Heyward, Upton, Gomez, Lucroy) that Dozier should be able to still fetch a very good and MLB-ready pitching prospect either at the upcoming deadline, next offseason, or even at the 2018 deadline. If De Leon is basically the only, say, top-200 prospect being offered by the Dodgers, then the Twins should just walk away. I think there will be a prospect equivalent to De Leon (or at least 90% of De Leon) available over the next two years. And there is a non-zero chance that the market will move in the Twins favor depending on injuries.

[Riverbrian]

 

I think there is a ton of evidence from recent trades (Zobrist, Cespedes, Kendrick, Heyward, Upton, Gomez, Lucroy) that Dozier should be able to still fetch a very good and MLB-ready pitching prospect either at the upcoming deadline, next offseason, or even at the 2018 deadline. If De Leon is basically the only, say, top-200 prospect being offered by the Dodgers, then the Twins should just walk away. I think there will be a prospect equivalent to De Leon (or at least 90% of De Leon) available over the next two years. And there is a non-zero chance that the market will move in the Twins favor depending on injuries.

 

No man ever steps into the same river twice. 

 

For it's not the same river and he is not the same man. 

 

 

[markos]

 

Sure, you can't dismiss positional scarcity, but it is also a factor that can change drastically over the next 18 months. So I do think it is worth trying to determine the underlying, intrinsic value of the player. My (incredibly simplistic) framework is this:

Right now, say Dozier's intrinsic value is $2.00.

In July, it will be $1.50.

Next offseason, it will be $1.00.

In July, 2018, it will be $0.50.

The Dodgers are basically offering $1.00 for Dozier right now, and because of the current market conditions, that is the best offer available. Now, I don't think the Twins need to hold out for $2.00, as there is definitely some risk that Dozier will turn into a pumpkin or get injured or something like that. But right now there is a pretty big gap between what the Dodgers have been offering and what players of Dozier's caliber are traditionally worth. Further, there isn't a huge gap between what they are offering and what teams have traditionally been willing to offer for rentals at the end of their contracts.

 

I've come full circle on this. Initially, I thought it would be a huge failure if Dozier is in a Twins uniform on Opening Day. But now, given the non-Dave rumors, I don't think that would be the wrong move, and actually it is a reasonable risk to take.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I've come full circle on this. Initially, I thought it would be a huge failure if Dozier is in a Twins uniform on Opening Day. But now, given the non-Dave rumors, I don't think that would be the wrong move, and actually it is a reasonable risk to take.

 

I can't fault your position, we disagree, but you acknowledge all the risks so that's perfectly reasonable.  

 

The only thing I'd quibble with is that we don't know if it is $1.00 on the table or not. If it's 1.25?  1.50? Well, then that changes a lot for all of us I think.  We just don't know.

[USAFChief]

3-4 months less, but same number of pennant races and potential postseasons.

Fair enough.

[USAFChief]

No man ever steps into the same river twice. 

 

For it's not the same river and he is not the same man.

 

So sayeth River...Brian.

 

He should know.

[Riverbrian]

 

So sayeth River...Brian.

He should know.

http://www.nbc.com/sites/nbcunbc/files/files/images/2014/10/17/140207_2724258_Motivational_Speaker_anvver_5.jpghttp://www.2120.cl/wp-content/gallery/cuna-discos/neil-young-ii.jpg

[CiabanItReal]

 

I agree with you on this completely.

However you stepped out of context.

This quote of yours was in response to my response to someone elses response... That the Dodgers are a playoff team without Dozier.

So... I'm not sure where to go next because I'm about to get pushed from both sides. It puts me in the middle of a discussion that when combined together says... The Dodgers are a playoff team without Dozier but not guaranteed to be a playoff team with Dozier.

For clarity... There are no gaurentees. I'm not selling Dozier as a playoff guarantee. I'm selling Dozier to the Dodgers because they need a 2B and we need pitching. It's one of those moments where we could help each other out.

No, I think the dodgers are a playoff team with or without him, what he dose is increase their odd's of winning the world series, though probably not by much.

[gunnarthor]

 

Well, my apologies for the condescension.  But it's a little frustrating for you to try and frame this as you evaluating the league's value for a player and then immediately dismiss information that runs counter to your conclusion.  Sorry, but the value placed on Lucroy around the league was significantly higher than Dozier.  And that makes sense because two-way catchers are borderline unicorns.    The league's response to their availability indicates the two were valued significantly differently, that's just a fact.

 

As for your second point - I've already done this!  When people have said "let's just wait until the deadline", I've pointed out a few deals in which hitters moved at the deadline that represent some troubling signs.  Let's assume the offer is DeLeon and Stewart or Calhoun.  That offer, relative to prospect rankings, is a significantly better one than Zobrist fetched.  It's also better than the package Detroit fetched for Cespedes.  In fact, going back, I can't find any midseason trades for hitters that approached the quality of that offer.

 

Offseason deals aren't much different.  Fowler didn't net anything close to that.  Robertson was the top prospect Zobrist fetched for Tampa and he was ranked 85th at the time.  

 

Here's the real challenge, when's the last time a hitter was moved for a top 40 prospect as part of the deal?  I'm struggling to find one.  Which should tell you something right there.  Maybe I'm overlooking one, but if your argument is "Dozier deserves more than a top 40 prospect", it'd probably help your case if that happened any time in the last 5 years.

Hitters that were traded for top 40 prospects - Eaton, Lucroy, Gomez etc

 

I'm not saying "wait for the deadline."  I'm saying point out some recent trades that you think show Dozier's value today. 

 

Perhaps I'm misreading you but your POV seems to be that the Twins shouldn't trade him for what they think his value is but rather take what the Dodgers set the market at.  I'm curious if you can find trades that correspond to what that return would be.  I have pointed out a number of trades that I think demonstrate his rough market value (two top 100 prospects, plus a bit more).  You disagree.  Can you give examples of why you think his value is, for example, one top 100 prospect and one back-end starter based on actual ML trades? 

[TheLeviathan]

In the three examples you gave, here is how they break down IMO:

 

Lucroy - he's a unicorn.  Two way catchers just don't exist.  And he's cheap.  Sorry, but scarcity is an enormous factor and Dozier just doesn't compare in value because of it.  (Not to mention Jeffress, a young reliever who was pitching well, came with him)

 

Eaton - five years of dirt cheap control pretty much says it all.  There is every reason to believe this propels his value beyond Dozier, even if we could argue that on a per season basis Dozier is more valuable.  I personally think they got a haul here that I have trouble believing.  So I consider it an outlier.

 

Gomez - Gomez wasn't dealt by himself either.  Fiers was pitching pretty well at the time of the trade.   Would they have been able to net Phillips without both of those guys in the deal?    Either way, Phillips and Santana is roughly equivalent to DeLeon and Calhoun, no?  And that would be a deal I'd accept.  

 

I think the Twins should seriously weigh the risks of holding on to him.  DeLeon + Buehler/Stewart/Calhoun would be pretty close to those three deals and there is less demand for Dozier and reason to believe he's less valuable than at least two of the guys who netted similar deals.  Hanging on to him means he gets older, his team control wanes, and his production may tail back - all of which could jeopardize seeing that kind of deal again.  If the Dodgers (and I know, that's a big if) have offered something like DeLeon and one of those other prospects, it is a serious risk to turn that down.  

[gunnarthor]

 

I think the Twins should seriously weigh the risks of holding on to him.  DeLeon + Buehler/Stewart/Calhoun would be pretty close to those three deals and there is less demand for Dozier and reason to believe he's less valuable than at least two of the guys who netted similar deals.  Hanging on to him means he gets older, his team control wanes, and his production may tail back - all of which could jeopardize seeing that kind of deal again.  If the Dodgers (and I know, that's a big if) have offered something like DeLeon and one of those other prospects, it is a serious risk to turn that down.  

Stewart, in my opinion, isn't in the Buehler/Calhoun category but that's just semantics.  That looks like a top 30 prospect (De Leon) and another top 100 (Calhoun/Buehler).  That's not too far off of what I think his value would be (although Calhoun isn't a great fit and most sources have Buehler as untouchable in a De Leon trade).

[TheLeviathan]

 

Stewart, in my opinion, isn't in the Buehler/Calhoun category but that's just semantics.  That looks like a top 30 prospect (De Leon) and another top 100 (Calhoun/Buehler).  That's not too far off of what I think his value would be (although Calhoun isn't a great fit and most sources have Buehler as untouchable in a De Leon trade).

 

Yeah, I think most of us are in that camp.  DeLeon is a fair centerpiece and I think they have a couple good options for the second piece.  If any of those secondary guys are on the table, I think they're making a mistake to turn it down.  Trades for hitters the last five years indicate it's highly unlikely anything else better is coming our way.

[Riverbrian]

 

No, I think the dodgers are a playoff team with or without him, what he dose is increase their odd's of winning the world series, though probably not by much.

 

Trading for Dozier doesn't guarantee them a playoff spot anymore than resigning Utley. It makes them a little more likely, but it's not chiseled in stone.

 

That is what you typed

 

And I agree that Dozier doesn't guarantee the Dodgers anything. 

 

However... If you feel that Dozier isn't a significant upgrade over Utley at 2B... on that we will disagree. 

 

If you feel that the Dodgers will make the playoffs anyway with Utley or Enrique... I won't argue that either cuz the Dodgers look good on paper but that type of thinking is Hubris and there is a downside to hubris. 

 

There are 8 teams with legitimate chances to grab one of 5 playoff spots in the NL next year. I'd try to get better in 2017 when the opportunity arises. 

 

Dozier guarantees none of it.. Dozier just makes the Dodgers most likely better and it's dangerous to pass up getting better because of Hubris. 

 

[Major League Ready]

 

In the three examples you gave, here is how they break down IMO:

 

Lucroy - he's a unicorn.  Two way catchers just don't exist.  And he's cheap.  Sorry, but scarcity is an enormous factor and Dozier just doesn't compare in value because of it.  (Not to mention Jeffress, a young reliever who was pitching well, came with him)

 

Eaton - five years of dirt cheap control pretty much says it all.  There is every reason to believe this propels his value beyond Dozier, even if we could argue that on a per season basis Dozier is more valuable.  I personally think they got a haul here that I have trouble believing.  So I consider it an outlier.

 

Gomez - Gomez wasn't dealt by himself either.  Fiers was pitching pretty well at the time of the trade.   Would they have been able to net Phillips without both of those guys in the deal?    Either way, Phillips and Santana is roughly equivalent to DeLeon and Calhoun, no?  And that would be a deal I'd accept.  

 

I think the Twins should seriously weigh the risks of holding on to him.  DeLeon + Buehler/Stewart/Calhoun would be pretty close to those three deals and there is less demand for Dozier and reason to believe he's less valuable than at least two of the guys who netted similar deals.  Hanging on to him means he gets older, his team control wanes, and his production may tail back - all of which could jeopardize seeing that kind of deal again.  If the Dodgers (and I know, that's a big if) have offered something like DeLeon and one of those other prospects, it is a serious risk to turn that down.  

Totally agree that Lucroy and Eaton have more value, especially Eaton with 5 years of control.  Also agree they should not risk getting nothing out of Dozier.  So, the key is did the Dodgers offer a 2nd piece in the Buehler / Calhoun level or were the other pieces C prospects?   I never did believe ALvarfez was on the table.  This deal would have gotten done if that was the case.  If not, Falvey/Levine substantially overplayed their hand given the limited demand for Dozier.

[CiabanItReal]

 

Trading for Dozier doesn't guarantee them a playoff spot anymore than resigning Utley. It makes them a little more likely, but it's not chiseled in stone.

 

That is what you typed

 

And I agree that Dozier doesn't guarantee the Dodgers anything. 

 

However... If you feel that Dozier isn't a significant upgrade over Utley at 2B... on that we will disagree. 

 

If you feel that the Dodgers will make the playoffs anyway with Utley or Enrique... I won't argue that either cuz the Dodgers look good on paper but that type of thinking is Hubris and there is a downside to hubris. 

 

There are 8 teams with legitimate chances to grab one of 5 playoff spots in the NL next year. I'd try to get better in 2017 when the opportunity arises. 

 

Dozier guarantees none of it.. Dozier just makes the Dodgers most likely better and it's dangerous to pass up getting better because of Hubris. 

The only one of those teams that really matters is the giants, and the dodgers are a better team than the giants.

[CiabanItReal]

 

I thought maybe there was some kind of list I could look at that I didn't know about.  

 

P.S., for me, MLB dot com rankings give too much importance to how close the player is to the majors.  I'd rather a prospect list just focus on the talent of the prospect and the projectability of them.  Alvarez deserves much higher than 90s.

 

In any event.  Did I read your post below right? You believe 2 years of Dozier is worth De Leon, Stewart AND one or two more prospects?

 

'I'm suggesting two starting pitchers able to come into the Twins' rotation in 2017, plus one or two low A or A level prospects. De Leon and Stewart fit the first part of that bill - but they're hardly equal. I want two starters who have gone through their paces at the AA and AAA levels, pitched at least 120 innings last year (I believe De Leon fell short of that, though) – in essence two guys i reasonably believe can start games and have success at the MLB level in 2017. That and one or two 'lottery ticket' types.

 

What would those one or two prospects be?

Really, I notice they tend to over rank recent draft picks based on ceiling, especially mid season, I kind of wish they would give more credence to players succeeding at higher levels.

I remember them ranking Bubba starling top 15 straight out of high school.