Dozier Trade Discussion Thread

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I was originally quite excited by the idea of getting a few of the Dodgers top names, but the more I read about the success rate of 'prospects', the less thrilled I am, especially after this article:

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/77004/odds-are-selling-the-farm-is-worth-the-risk

 

While the Eaton trade certainly seems lopsided - the fact that he makes a somewhat defensible case for Washington - makes the Dozier for JDL+whatever seem even less defensible. The list of "top" prospects over the years that have been traded, versus those that have been kept really makes it seem like teams are pretty good at evaluating their own talent. If a team is willing to trade a prospect or not might be quite telling - and the Dodgers seem quite willing to trade JDL...

 

And I don't need to be reminded that Dozier's value will never be higher, he'll be gone in two years, we need ML ready pitching etc, etc. Of course that is all true. But I wonder what teams out there are really willing to trade prospects they actually believe will be impact players. Do I think that should that stop us from making a trade? Absolutely not. But it stinks to be in the position of a big time losing team banking on prospects another team is willing to trade away.

 

All that is to say, I am probably not excited about this trade anymore. Not sure if I was coherent.

 

The success rate of prospects isn't fantastic, but that's a reality of baseball.

 

The number of guys who get traded as top 25 prospects has generally been so small, I don't think we can really make any great determinations from it.

 

Honestly, if you're going to consider the mere offering of a player as suspicious, you're going to find yourself in transactional paralysis.

[NCtwinsfan]

 

The success rate of prospects isn't fantastic, but that's a reality of baseball.

 

The number of guys who get traded as top 25 prospects has generally been so small, I don't think we can really make any great determinations from it.

 

Honestly, if you're going to consider the mere offering of a player as suspicious, you're going to find yourself in transactional paralysis.

I get that, I think my concern is not that it is paralyzing, I definitely think it should happen. However, since it is JDL that seems to be the piece they are willing to offer to everyone, I don't have a problem being suspicious. I find the Dodgers position the much more enviable one, regardless of whether JDL or others are "highly regarded."

The Dodgers are a winner who have a good idea in what they are getting in Dozier, and have a pretty good idea in what they are willing to give up. We are a losing team who know very well what we are giving up, and not as great of an idea of what we are getting back. But what can you do?  Hope for the best that things turn out all right.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

To me... it kind of feels like... you can't have this guy because he's gonna be a superstar and you can't have this guy because he's gonna be amazing... but... you can... have,,, this guy... He might work out for you. 

I don't think that is a fair read of the situation, though.

The Twins and Dodgers started discussing a Dozier trade.  The Dodgers have a handful of top prospects.  For the discussions to go anywhere, at least one of those top prospects has to be agreed upon by both sides.

 

The Dodgers are trying to improve their present-day offense, so it's natural for them not to want that one prospect to be Bellinger who could slide into LF or 1B by midseason.  Similarly, the Twins need pitching, and have a few top position player prospects of their own settling into MLB right now, so it's natural that they don't want that one prospect to be Alvarez or Buehler who are probably 3 years away.  So that leaves De Leon as the common target on both sides.

 

I think it's far more likely that the agreement on De Leon was a product of this kind of thinking by both teams, than it was the Dodgers simply trying to dump him off on the Twins instead of other prospects.

 

Beyond that, the disagreement is about the number of top prospects to send in a deal.  The Dodgers think it should be 1; the Twins think it should be 2.  That doesn't really have much to do with the quality of De Leon as the agreed upon #1 either.  I suspect we'd be in the same general situation if the circumstances were a little different and the first commonly agreed upon prospect was Bellinger or Verdugo.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

However, since it is JDL that seems to be the piece they are willing to offer to everyone, I don't have a problem being suspicious.

Are they offering De Leon to everyone?  To my knowledge, he hasn't been "offered" anywhere but to the Twins.  Most observers suggest De Leon would be too much to offer for Forsythe, and with the no-trade clause looming, I doubt that Kinsler talks have progressed to the point of an offer.

 

See my post above too -- I doubt the De Leon inclusion has been fully dictated by the Dodgers, like a kid offering you their least favorite candy from their Halloween bag.  Beyond perhaps Bellinger, I am guessing the Twins want De Leon most of all too -- they just also want Alvarez or Buehler as a second piece.

[TheLeviathan]

Aren't the basis of all trade talks something along the lines of "we can afford to give up this guy right now?"

 

Reframing the entire process as a lemon swap seems unfair.  The Dodgers aren't offering DeLeon because he's a lemon.  They're offering him because they feel content with their pitching depth.  It's not some deliberate effort to troll us or dump some overrated prospect on us.

 

Hell, I could reframe pretty much every trade ever that way, that doesn't make it a valid point of view.  Observe:  Can you believe those chumps in New York took Johan when we knew he was going to blow out his arm before his extension was even half up?  Suckers....

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Aren't the basis of all trade talks something along the lines of "we can afford to give up this guy right now?"

 

Reframing the entire process as a lemon swap seems unfair.  The Dodgers aren't offering DeLeon because he's a lemon.  They're offering him because they feel content with their pitching depth.  It's not some deliberate effort to troll us or dump some overrated prospect on us.

 

Hell, I could reframe pretty much every trade ever that way, that doesn't make it a valid point of view.  Observe:  Can you believe those chumps in New York took Johan when we knew he was going to blow out his arm before his extension was even half up?  Suckers....

Yes.

 

Or even this proposed deal -- are the Twins just trying to get a massive prospect haul for Dozier before his 42 HR shine wears off?

[NCtwinsfan]

 

Aren't the basis of all trade talks something along the lines of "we can afford to give up this guy right now?"

 

Reframing the entire process as a lemon swap seems unfair.  The Dodgers aren't offering DeLeon because he's a lemon.  They're offering him because they feel content with their pitching depth.  It's not some deliberate effort to troll us or dump some overrated prospect on us.

 

Hell, I could reframe pretty much every trade ever that way, that doesn't make it a valid point of view.  Observe:  Can you believe those chumps in New York took Johan when we knew he was going to blow out his arm before his extension was even half up?  Suckers....

Yes, I agree you have a valid point of view, it just isn't mine at the moment. Not sure that means other view points are invalid. Also, I would not characterize the Dodgers as trolling or dumping or lemon swapping. Perhaps I was not clear enough describing my perspective. However, I am pretty confident in saying that my perspective doesn't mean much (it doesn't) since I am not the one sitting at the negotiating table. I am just the type of personality who would generally prefer to be on the side of recieving what I consider the more known commodity, than the potential for bigger reward. I envy the Dodgers in this particular situation.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Obviously I think all of us Twins fans would be much more excited if we were in the Dodgers position.  I assure you that none of us are truly excited to be coming off a 103 loss season with our current best player set to walk in 2 years.

 

Can't let that cloud our decision-making though.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Hell, I could reframe pretty much every trade ever that way, that doesn't make it a valid point of view.

 

Well, information asymmetry is a defining feature of MLB trades. It is in fact relevant for pretty much any deal that is ever made. Your post framed it in stilted, hyperbolic terms, but the underlying concern is 100% valid. I don't see how that can rationally be questioned - do you really think the Twins can project De Leon as accurately as the Dodgers?

 

Nor is it an all-or-nothing issue. De Leon doesn't have to be a "lemon" for there to be a question of whether he's legitimately worth ~$50 million in surplus value or more like ~$25 million. He's not a "lemon" in either scenario, but that's a huge difference that will result in very different analyses.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yes, I agree you have a valid point of view, it just isn't mine at the moment. Not sure that means other view points are invalid. Also, I would not characterize the Dodgers as trolling or dumping or lemon swapping. Perhaps I was not clear enough describing my perspective. However, I am pretty confident in saying that my perspective doesn't mean much (it doesn't) since I am not the one sitting at the negotiating table. I am just the type of personality who would generally prefer to be on the side of recieving what I consider the more known commodity, than the potential for bigger reward. I envy the Dodgers in this particular situation.

 

All teams go through cycles where they have to deal more known quantities for unknowns.  We're not in a position to add knowns, we have desperate needs and acquiring the means to fix them is going to take outside help.

 

And when you're bad, IMO, it only heightens the need to take risks to reverse that.  Not clutch on to what meager things you have out of fear of what might happen if you make a move.  We're going to have to take gambles or risk being bad even longer.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Well, information asymmetry is a defining feature of MLB trades. It is in fact relevant for pretty much any deal that is ever made. Your post framed it in stilted, hyperbolic terms, but the underlying concern is 100% valid.

Is it less stilted and hyperbolic than "the Dodgers have offered De Leon to everyone" when they haven't?  Or characterizing the Twins and Dodgers settling on De Leon as the top piece in discussions as a decision entirely dictated by the Dodgers?  Because those were the posts being responded to.

 

I don't doubt information asymmetry exists, but there doesn't seem to be a rational reason for a Twins fan to really fear it applying here quite yet.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Well, information asymmetry is a defining feature of MLB trades. It is in fact relevant for pretty much any deal that is ever made. Your post framed it in stilted, hyperbolic terms, but the underlying concern is 100% valid. I don't see how that can rationally be questioned - do you really think the Twins can project De Leon as accurately as the Dodgers?

 

Nor is it an all-or-nothing issue. De Leon doesn't have to be a "lemon" for there to be a question of whether he's legitimately worth ~$50 million in surplus value or more like ~$25 million. He's not a "lemon" in either scenario, but that's a huge difference that will result in very different analyses.

 

All trade discussions are in a "fog of war" type environment.  What I take issue with is it seemed like these talks are being characterized as borderline nefarious on behalf of the Dodgers.  Which is absurd.  They're shopping an asset that is highly regarded by all sorts of non-Dodgers people.  And if these negotiations were nothing but the Dodgers forcing DeLeon on us against our will, I highly doubt trade talks would've continued.  

 

Nothing about that characterization makes much sense.  Yes, the Dodgers have more detailed information about Deleon.  The Twins also, by the way, have asymmetrical familiarity with Dozier.

 

So I guess I fail to see how that makes the Dodgers the guy wearing the black hat here. 

 

 

[Rhino and Compass]

 

 

 

So I guess I fail to see how that makes the Dodgers the guy wearing the black hat here. 

Because this is a Twins fan message board. Confirmation bias

[Riverbrian]

 

I don't think that is a fair read of the situation, though.

The Twins and Dodgers started discussing a Dozier trade.  The Dodgers have a handful of top prospects.  For the discussions to go anywhere, at least one of those top prospects has to be agreed upon by both sides.

 

The Dodgers are trying to improve their present-day offense, so it's natural for them not to want that one prospect to be Bellinger who could slide into LF or 1B by midseason.  Similarly, the Twins need pitching, and have a few top position player prospects of their own settling into MLB right now, so it's natural that they don't want that one prospect to be Alvarez or Buehler who are probably 3 years away.  So that leaves De Leon as the common target on both sides.

 

I think it's far more likely that the agreement on De Leon was a product of this kind of thinking by both teams, than it was the Dodgers simply trying to dump him off on the Twins instead of other prospects.

 

Beyond that, the disagreement is about the number of top prospects to send in a deal.  The Dodgers think it should be 1; the Twins think it should be 2.  That doesn't really have much to do with the quality of De Leon as the agreed upon #1 either.  I suspect we'd be in the same general situation if the circumstances were a little different and the first commonly agreed upon prospect was Bellinger or Verdugo.

 

I get that and I can't argue any of it because I don't know what has been on the table. 

 

DeLeon by himself?

DeLeon/Alverez?

DeLeon/+1 or +2

 

I'm ok forgetting about Bellinger... I want pitching so I don't care...

 

But let's say DeLeon is on the table. That I assume means Urias is off the table. That in itself is the Dodgers saying you can't have this guy but you can have this guy. 

 

Don't misunderstand me... I'm not saying that we should get Urias or else go home but it's an example of how I come to the gut feeling. 

 

I've read some rumors stating that Alverez is off the table as well.... even as the piece... None of us know if that's true but that would be prospect #2 off the table and that leads to thoughts of DeLeon being the prospect they are comfortable giving up. 

 

There will be no reason to check my conviction on these feelings. I've only read rumors and have no idea what has been asked or offered. It's just anytime I read that so and so will not be included... it makes me stop and think about it. 

[TheLeviathan]

If someone at this time last year had called us about a third baseman and we said "You can have Plouffe", would the inclination to say "Oh, not letting us have Sano eh?  Must be something wrong with Plouffe...." be at all justifiable?

 

That's a really strange leap of logic.  I mean, it could be true, but it's far from the most plausible explanation.

[NCtwinsfan]

 

All trade discussions are in a "fog of war" type environment.  What I take issue with is it seemed like these talks are being characterized as borderline nefarious on behalf of the Dodgers.  Which is absurd.  They're shopping an asset that is highly regarded by all sorts of non-Dodgers people.  And if these negotiations were nothing but the Dodgers forcing DeLeon on us against our will, I highly doubt trade talks would've continued.  

 

Nothing about that characterization makes much sense.  Yes, the Dodgers have more detailed information about Deleon.  The Twins also, by the way, have asymmetrical familiarity with Dozier.

 

So I guess I fail to see how that makes the Dodgers the guy wearing the black hat here. 

I understand hyperbole as a form of rhetoric, but I'm not sure anyone is insinuating borderline nefariousness on anyone's behalf. I simply see the Dodgers as the one's wearing the "fortunate" or "enviable" hat at the negotiating table. Based on the little information I have, it seems to me the Dodgers have the upper hand. And as a Twins fan observing all this, it is somewhat disappointing to watch unfold, and makes me less excited about the trade in general - again, about the return, not the idea or necessity of the trade. The actual trade is for the people actually making the decisions, the Twins/Dodgers Front Offices. As an upper deck observer, my expressed hopes and opinions on the situation can't really cloud the Twin's FO decision-making.

 

In retrospect, I can see how stating the obvious, that the Dodgers are in an enviable position, is superfluous to the conversation. Being a fan can involve a lot of emotion, and I enjoy reading others comments and occasionally sharing an opinion of my own. Regardless, if my comments have caused issue for you or anyone else, I apologize.

[TheLeviathan]

 

In retrospect, I can see how stating the obvious, that the Dodgers are in an enviable position, is superfluous to the conversation. Being a fan can involve a lot of emotion, and I enjoy reading others comments and occasionally sharing an opinion of my own. Regardless, if my comments have caused issue for you or anyone else, I apologize.

 

Not at all, I just think some of the way you phrased your argument lead me to believe you were going past the point you restated here.

 

The Dodgers are in the enviable position, but I might argue for a different reason: They have a lot of what a lot of teams don't.  Namely: pitching.  And we are in the unenviable position of having almost none of it.  

 

I've argued a few times in this thread that I think our need is far stronger than LA's.  So that absolutely puts them in the more enviable position.  And, if the situations were reversed, I'd expect we'd use that for leverage too.  It sucks, but a lot of things suck about our position right now.  So I completely sympathize, I've just sort of made peace with that long before this even started,

[Oldgoat_MN]

Thousands of posts on this same subject and I'm still enjoying it.

 

Clearly there is something very wrong with me...

[drivlikejehu]

 

All trade discussions are in a "fog of war" type environment.  What I take issue with is it seemed like these talks are being characterized as borderline nefarious on behalf of the Dodgers.  Which is absurd.  They're shopping an asset that is highly regarded by all sorts of non-Dodgers people.  And if these negotiations were nothing but the Dodgers forcing DeLeon on us against our will, I highly doubt trade talks would've continued.  

 

Nothing about that characterization makes much sense.  Yes, the Dodgers have more detailed information about Deleon.  The Twins also, by the way, have asymmetrical familiarity with Dozier.

 

So I guess I fail to see how that makes the Dodgers the guy wearing the black hat here. 

 

Few posters have alleged that the Dodgers are doing anything nefarious . . . that's been a very minimal and irrelevant aspect of the discussion. Taking advantage of an information asymmetry isn't nefarious when both parties are fully aware of its existence.

 

It all boils down to risk. You seemingly refuse to acknowledge the obvious fact that Dozier carries far, far less risk than De Leon. De Leon is far riskier just by virtue of being a pitcher, even if he already had demonstrated MLB success. But in fact, he hasn't demonstrated that, nor the ability to maintain a starting workload throughout a season (or even the substantial part of a season). 

 

Historically, even assuming the Twins knew just as much about De Leon as the Dodgers do, he is still a risky player with a relatively low chance of being a consistently good starter. 

 

You're also wrong when you claim that we learn nothing by the fact that the Dodgers are willing to deal  him, due to their surplus of pitching. It tells us that the Dodgers don't see him as being a significant upgrade to their 2017-18 rotation, because that would give back a significant chunk of the improvement brought in by Dozier.

 

For a younger prospect, that wouldn't really mean anything, but De Leon will be 25 soon and basically he is who he is at this point aside from some tweaks to approach, etc.

 

 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Few posters have alleged that the Dodgers are doing anything nefarious . . . that's been a very minimal and irrelevant aspect of the discussion. Taking advantage of an information asymmetry isn't nefarious when both parties are fully aware of its existence.

 

It all boils down to risk. You seemingly refuse to acknowledge the obvious fact that Dozier carries far, far less risk than De Leon. De Leon is far riskier just by virtue of being a pitcher, even if he already had demonstrated MLB success. But in fact, he hasn't demonstrated that, nor the ability to maintain a starting workload throughout a season (or even the substantial part of a season). 

 

Historically, even assuming the Twins knew just as much about De Leon as the Dodgers do, he is still a risky player with a relatively low chance of being a consistently good starter. 

 

You're also wrong when you claim that we learn nothing by the fact that the Dodgers are willing to deal  him, due to their surplus of pitching. It tells us that the Dodgers don't see him as being a significant upgrade to their 2017-18 rotation, because that would give back a significant chunk of the improvement brought in by Dozier.

 

For a younger prospect, that wouldn't really mean anything, but De Leon will be 25 soon and basically he is who he is at this point aside from some tweaks to approach, etc.

 

well said.  I agree that nefarious is a bad way to look at it... but they do know their own guys and know them far better than we do. Just like us, they are trying to maximize the value of an asset.  But as you rightly note, JDL carries A LOT more risk... so much so that he needs to come over with more. 

[HawkeyeDodger]

 

Few posters have alleged that the Dodgers are doing anything nefarious . . . that's been a very minimal and irrelevant aspect of the discussion. Taking advantage of an information asymmetry isn't nefarious when both parties are fully aware of its existence.

 

It all boils down to risk. You seemingly refuse to acknowledge the obvious fact that Dozier carries far, far less risk than De Leon. De Leon is far riskier just by virtue of being a pitcher, even if he already had demonstrated MLB success. But in fact, he hasn't demonstrated that, nor the ability to maintain a starting workload throughout a season (or even the substantial part of a season). 

 

Historically, even assuming the Twins knew just as much about De Leon as the Dodgers do, he is still a risky player with a relatively low chance of being a consistently good starter. 

 

You're also wrong when you claim that we learn nothing by the fact that the Dodgers are willing to deal  him, due to their surplus of pitching. It tells us that the Dodgers don't see him as being a significant upgrade to their 2017-18 rotation, because that would give back a significant chunk of the improvement brought in by Dozier.

 

For a younger prospect, that wouldn't really mean anything, but De Leon will be 25 soon and basically he is who he is at this point aside from some tweaks to approach, etc.

I will agree with you that JDL is a riskier player than an established major league player of Dozier's capabilities.  However, I certainly don't agree with your analysis of why he's available  Most Dodgers fans would see him as an upgrade to the rotation.  However the Dodgers aren't going to just eat $20 million on McCarthy and $32 million on Kazmir.  

 

 

[ppearson50]

Dodgers Digest guy suggested on Twitter that the Dodgers offer Deleon and last year's supplemental first round pick Jordan Sheffield as a way to break this deadlock between the Dodgers and Twins. Looks like Sheffield has a high 90s fastball. He was as low A Great Lakes Loons last year. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Few posters have alleged that the Dodgers are doing anything nefarious . . . that's been a very minimal and irrelevant aspect of the discussion. Taking advantage of an information asymmetry isn't nefarious when both parties are fully aware of its existence.

 

It all boils down to risk. You seemingly refuse to acknowledge the obvious fact that Dozier carries far, far less risk than De Leon. De Leon is far riskier just by virtue of being a pitcher, even if he already had demonstrated MLB success. But in fact, he hasn't demonstrated that, nor the ability to maintain a starting workload throughout a season (or even the substantial part of a season). 

 

Historically, even assuming the Twins knew just as much about De Leon as the Dodgers do, he is still a risky player with a relatively low chance of being a consistently good starter. 

 

You're also wrong when you claim that we learn nothing by the fact that the Dodgers are willing to deal  him, due to their surplus of pitching. It tells us that the Dodgers don't see him as being a significant upgrade to their 2017-18 rotation, because that would give back a significant chunk of the improvement brought in by Dozier.

 

For a younger prospect, that wouldn't really mean anything, but De Leon will be 25 soon and basically he is who he is at this point aside from some tweaks to approach, etc.

 

1) I have readily acknowledge the risks of JDL.  Repeatedly.  I've said that gambling on upside is something we have to do.  That's the definition of risk. So no, I've acknowledged it.  Repeatedly.  And just did so again.  And will do so again in the next paragraph.

 

2) "relatively low chance of being a good starter" is nonsense.  That's your opinion and a host of established scouts disagree with you.  Don't suggest this as fact.  It isn't.  He has more risk than Dozier.  He and Dozier have different forms of risk, but JDL is riskier.  Hence why I do want 2nd and 3rd pieces and have said so.  I just am not going to demand Kepler with my Berrios to make a deal like many of you.

 

3) All it shows is that they'd rather use him to augment another position, not that they view him as garbage.  They're trying to maximize an asset that will best help their team.  This kind of phrasing is basically just dressed up "nefarious" talk.  That the Dodgers have put lipstick on a pig and are selling it to us.  That's EXACTLY what I'm saying is nonsense.  

 

JDL is highly regarded by a wide array of publications and scouts.  Unless you allege some vast Dodger conspiracy that they've roped in a multitude of outlets to join them for the sole purpose of duping some future trade partner....it's absolute nonsense.

[nicksaviking]

Dodgers Digest guy suggested on Twitter that the Dodgers offer Deleon and last year's supplemental first round pick Jordan Sheffield as a way to break this deadlock between the Dodgers and Twins. Looks like Sheffield has a high 90s fastball. He was as low A Great Lakes Loons last year.

 

Sheffield will be a reliever if he makes it at all. That doesn't do much for me, I'd need another starting prospect and likely other reasonable talent.

 

Frankly though, I'm OK walking away from De Leon at this point. I'd rather have Alvarez and Stewart than De Leon by himself and no other decent starters.

[HawkeyeDodger]

 

Dodgers Digest guy suggested on Twitter that the Dodgers offer Deleon and last year's supplemental first round pick Jordan Sheffield as a way to break this deadlock between the Dodgers and Twins. Looks like Sheffield has a high 90s fastball. He was as low A Great Lakes Loons last year. 

I suggested something similar a while back.  I would think a deal could get worked out with some combo of JDL, Sheffied, De Jong, Oaks, Wood and a hitter like Rios.  Also, Thinkbluela.com just did a summary of the Dodgers best pitchers 20 or under not named Urias.  

[Squirrel]

 

Thousands of posts on this same subject and I'm still enjoying it.

 

Clearly there is something very wrong with me...

Concur!

[DaveW]

 

Dodgers Digest guy suggested on Twitter that the Dodgers offer Deleon and last year's supplemental first round pick Jordan Sheffield as a way to break this deadlock between the Dodgers and Twins. Looks like Sheffield has a high 90s fastball. He was as low A Great Lakes Loons last year. 

Two things:

 

-That goes against everything my source has said.
-If DeLeon and Stewart were the offer, the Twins promptly would have said no way!

DeLeon and Stewart 4 Dozier is MAYBE close to fair value if it was the trade deadline and Dozier was a FA after the year (3 month rental) definitely lopsided for 2 years.

[jimmer]

De Leon and Stewart would be a very good haul for Dozier.  For the love of Luke Skywalker, I hope we didn't/wouldn't turn that down.

[Squirrel]

De Leon and Stewart would be a very good haul for Dozier.  For the love of Luke Skywalker, I hope we didn't/wouldn't turn that down.

I'm wondering if he meant Sheffield, as that's what the person he quoted was saying.

[Oxtung]

The Dodgers signed a FA starting pitcher this offseason. You don't do that if you truly believe De Leon is a #2 starter.