Passan: Dodgers Nearing Deal for Forsythe

[gunnarthor]

 

No but who did they trade for him?

Realistically, we traded him for the 2024 version of Hu.

[Doomtints]

 

I still can't help feeling that if DeLeon was near the top of the list. They could have stashed him in AAA and had that incredible important insurance policy that all teams need because a 5 man rotation almost never stays intact for an entire year. I get Kazmir and McCarthy and not wanting to eat the contracts but that arm waiting in AAA is a huge part of planning for the 162 game grind ahead. 

 

The Dodgers have a full pitching staff and another half dozen pitchers who are ready enough to fill in if required. De Leon is ready to go into a rotation now and he is 24 years old. Keeping him in the minors would not make sense.

As for if they called up Stewart before De Leon meaning anything -- De Leon was not the first guy they called up in 2016 when pitchers were injured. The Dodgers had 49 players on their 40-man roster last year due to all of the injuries they had. Squeezing De Leon onto the roster would have been insane. So no, De Leon not being called up for some spot starts would not have meant anything in 2017.

[drivlikejehu]

 

The Dodgers have a full pitching staff and another half dozen pitchers who are ready enough to fill in if required. De Leon is ready to go into a rotation now and he is 24 years old. Keeping him in the minors would not make sense.

 

They have space in their bullpen. And every team in baseball has space for someone on the staff who is really good.

[USAFChief]

The Dodgers have a full pitching staff and another half dozen pitchers who are ready enough to fill in if required. De Leon is ready to go into a rotation now and he is 24 years old. Keeping him in the minors would not make sense.

As for if they called up Stewart before De Leon meaning anything -- De Leon was not the first guy they called up in 2016 when pitchers were injured. The Dodgers had 49 players on their 40-man roster last year due to all of the injuries they had. Squeezing De Leon onto the roster would have been insane. So no, De Leon not being called up for some spot starts would not have meant anything in 2017.

"Squeezing De Leon onto the roster"? He was up last year.

[Otto von Ballpark]

"Squeezing De Leon onto the roster"? He was up last year.

Only after rosters expanded from 25 to 40.

[USAFChief]

Only after rosters expanded from 25 to 40.

Right, but I was responding to a post saying the Dodgers wouldn't necessarily call up De Leon due to not squeezing him on the roster. He's already on the 40 man, so for a call up, there are no roster concerns.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Right, but I was responding to a post saying the Dodgers wouldn't necessarily call up De Leon due to not squeezing him on the roster. He's already on the 40 man, so for a call up, there are no roster concerns.

Ah, but he seemed to be talking about why De Leon wasn't called up earlier in 2016. "Squeezing De Leon onto the roster would have been insane" being in the past tense. They didn't add him to the 40-man until September 2016.

 

I'm not sure what else he was saying, so I will bow out now.

[USAFChief]

Ah, but he seemed to be talking about why De Leon wasn't called up earlier in 2016. "Squeezing De Leon onto the roster would have been insane" being in the past tense. They didn't add him to the 40-man until September 2016.

I'm not sure what else he was saying, so I will bow out now.

I'm not sure anymore either, so I will bow out as well.

[DodgerFan1234]

FWIW, Chris Camello (a guy that's actually broken real Dodger transactions this offseason) is saying that the failed Dodger-Twins trade was actually a 3-way involving Seattle and Alex Wood going for the prospect that would have been the 2nd big piece going to MIN. That deal obviously never happened, nor did the Dozier trade.

[Brock Beauchamp]

FWIW, Chris Camello (a guy that's actually broken real Dodger transactions this offseason) is saying that the failed Dodger-Twins trade was actually a 3-way involving Seattle and Alex Wood going for the prospect that would have been the 2nd big piece going to MIN. That deal obviously never happened, nor did the Dozier trade.

Damn. Bummer.

 

But it gives me a bit of comfort that Falvey may have tried his best to make a deal happen with a return he felt was fair for Dozier.

[TheLeviathan]

 

FWIW, Chris Camello (a guy that's actually broken real Dodger transactions this offseason) is saying that the failed Dodger-Twins trade was actually a 3-way involving Seattle and Alex Wood going for the prospect that would have been the 2nd big piece going to MIN. That deal obviously never happened, nor did the Dozier trade.

 

Interesting, they had more complex conversations about the deal than widely reported if this is true.

[drivlikejehu]

Not a surprise for those of us that assumed Falvey and Levine did their best to make it work.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Does this mean we all need to become experts on the Mariners system now?

[Vanimal46]

FWIW, Chris Camello (a guy that's actually broken real Dodger transactions this offseason) is saying that the failed Dodger-Twins trade was actually a 3-way involving Seattle and Alex Wood going for the prospect that would have been the 2nd big piece going to MIN. That deal obviously never happened, nor did the Dozier trade.

This helps clear up a TON of confusion on this site, if what he says is true. Thank you for another perspective. IMO it should deserve a pinned article because we've been posting from different perspectives all day....

 

Some posters have been adamant that the offer was 1:1.... Others are passionate the offer was De Leon and someone else. Again, pick your flavor for the other person.

 

Who here can put their Sherlock cap on and figure out this puzzle?!

[TheLeviathan]

 

This helps clear up a TON of confusion on this site, if what he says is true. Thank you for another perspective. IMO it should deserve a pinned article because we've been posting from different perspectives all day....

Some posters have been adamant that the offer was 1:1.... Others are passionate the offer was De Leon and someone else. Again, pick your flavor for the other person.

Who here can put their Sherlock cap on and figure out this puzzle?!

 

Well, this is just another report that confirms the 1:1 talk is a total falsehood.  If this is true, it's clear they had far ranging conversations on secondary pieces.  

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Also FWIW, Chris Camello was tweeting that the Dodgers were never high on De Leon.

 

So then the question is why should the Twins be high on him, then.

[jimmer]

 

Does this mean we all need to become experts on the Mariners system now?

What would be the point? 

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Also FWIW, Chris Camello was tweeting that the Dodgers were never high on De Leon.

So then the question is why should the Twins be high on him, then.

 

Pioneer Press has an interesting article with Knapp talking about DeLeon.  That might be part of it.

[USAFChief]

Well, this is just another report that confirms the 1:1 talk is a total falsehood.  If this is true, it's clear they had far ranging conversations on secondary pieces.

 

It's a report, and a piece of evidence, but it "confirms" nothing.

 

Also, for the record, I don't remember many 1:1 positions, but plenty of 1:1 + nothing of significant value.

 

It's like the proverbial "well then throw Duensing in the deal" jokes we enjoyed for years. Adding a body to a trade doesn't necessarily add value.

[TheLeviathan]

 

It's a report, and a piece of evidence, but it "confirms" nothing.

Also, for the record, I don't remember many 1:1 positions, but plenty of 1:1 + nothing of significant value.

It's like the proverbial "well then throw Duensing in the deal" jokes we enjoyed for years. Adding a body to a trade doesn't necessarily add value.

 

1:1 suggests that the Dodgers never budged.  It's being deliberately trotted out to make the Dodgers look like the unreasonable party when the truth is it could be both or neither.  But that doesn't fit a narrative Twins fans will want to eat up.  

 

This report suggests conversations got well past 1:1.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Pioneer Press has an interesting article with Knapp talking about DeLeon.  That might be part of it.

Good find. Kudos to Berardino for tracking down Knapp. I admit I didn't really think much about what opinions Pickler might have during this. http://www.twincities.com/2017/01/24/will-minnesota-twins-regret-passing-on-jose-de-leon-for-brian-dozier/

[Riverbrian]

 

If you can remember what you looked at, please share.  I just perused Tampa's transactions from 2006-2014 at B-Ref and I didn't see any notable prospects dealt, period:

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TBD/2006-transactions.shtml

 

I feel like Twins fans are extra sensitive here because of the Delmon Young deal, but that is not a recurring theme in Tampa's transactions.  Credit to Tampa for making it happen, but I think the blame for that mostly lies on the Twins.  If anything, Friedman probably got lucky after he waited that long to move Young (his flaws were on full display for a full MLB season in 2007 before the deal).

 

I did the same thing you did... I just started in 2016 and worked backwards.

 

 

Jose Peraza might be something special with the Reds but he still hasn't been named a starter yet. 

 

Scott Schebler... Had some moments but we really can't declare him a big time prospect who blossomed into a star. 

 

Andrew Heaney was a highly ranked prospect. We won't know if he pans out until 2018 and beyond because he is doing the Tommy John thing. 

 

Will have to see how Holmes, Montas and Cotton turn out for the A's. 

 

There's Dee Gordon but he doesn't really count because Dee had around 1,000 AB's with the Dodgers so he was past prospect status. 

 

With Tampa... He didn't trade many prospects because they couldn't with that operational budget... but he did an amazing job acquiring young talent. 

 

Wil Myers was traded to San Diego but after he left. 

 

[Oxtung]

1:1 suggests that the Dodgers never budged. It's being deliberately trotted out to make the Dodgers look like the unreasonable party when the truth is it could be both or neither. But that doesn't fit a narrative Twins fans will want to eat up.

 

This report suggests conversations got well past 1:1.

I interpreted it as the opposite actually. The discussions with the Dodgers were very far apart and in an effort to bridge the gap a 3rd party was brought in.

[drjim]

For those wondering, Buehler is #40 and Verdugo #31 on Law's Dodgers list.

[nicksaviking]

 

Good find. Kudos to Berardino for tracking down Knapp. I admit I didn't really think much about what opinions Pickler might have during this. http://www.twincities.com/2017/01/24/will-minnesota-twins-regret-passing-on-jose-de-leon-for-brian-dozier/

 

Righty, I already forgot the Twins hired Jeff Pickler from the Dodgers, he probably knew more about the Dodgers prospects than anyone.

 

Now I wouldn't present a report like this as fact, but both Berardino and Rick Knapp seem to believe the deal was 1:1.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Righty, I already forgot the Twins hired Jeff Pickler from the Dodgers, he probably knew more about the Dodgers prospects than anyone.

 

Now I wouldn't present a report like this as fact, but both Berardino and Rick Knapp seem to believe the deal was 1:1.

 

C'mon.  Knapp's quote is him spitballing.  He starts it with an "if" and everything.

 

Widespread reporting on their being a package of players and now a report of a three team deal being tried.  The range of possibilities of what was discussed are pretty broad (including the possibility there was a legit off and including the possibility that there was, indeed, nothing but junk), but they don't include 1:1 being on the table when the teams decided to break if off.  

 

The Dodgers don't have to be the bad guy.  We can stop trotting out this 1:1 thing.  There doesn't have to be a villain here.

[drivlikejehu]

That's a false premise; the Dodgers wouldn't be "villians" for offering De Leon straight up. There's no legitimate reason to artificially introduce value judgments where none existed and none are required.

[TheLeviathan]

The 1:1 falsehood is being trotted out time and time again to make it appear as though  it was an obvious move by the Twins to reject the deal on the table.  I don't know if it was obvious.  It might have been, but we don't know.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Now I wouldn't present a report like this as fact, but both Berardino and Rick Knapp seem to believe the deal was 1:1.

I'm pretty sure Rick Knapp, despite his other professional baseball knowledge, knows about as much about the actual proposal as you or me.  Heck, the "1-for-1" assumption was probably baked into the question that Berardino asked him.

[nicksaviking]

 

The 1:1 falsehood is being trotted out time and time again to make it appear as though  it was an obvious move by the Twins to reject the deal on the table.  I don't know if it was obvious.  It might have been, but we don't know.

 

You need to stop working in absolutes. I clearly did not when I said the article did not make a 1:1 deal a fact; however it is a possibility and these arguments could be avoided if at some point you acknowledge that your position is in fact, not a fact.

 

No one is saying there is a villain, certainly not me. For the record, I would guess the Dodgers offered another, though minimal piece. But that's a guess which is all any of us have at this point.