Topkin: Jose De Leon to have Tommy John surgery

[KirbyDome89]

 

To make a trade it takes 2 parties that want what each other has and willing to part with what they have. Pitching is a fairly universal need. 2B is not. It makes it that much more difficult to make a trade for pitching. 

You're right, pitching is more difficult to find. 

 

That said, the notion that it takes 2 willing participants to get a deal done works both ways. Last year was the first time Dozier put together a season that was consistently good from start to finish. He had that crazy end to 16' and he was an AS in 15' but sandwiched between those two was nearly an entire season of uninspiring play. The notion seems to be that LA was coming up short in offering value for Dozier, but I find it hard to believe that if the roles were reversed, Twins fans would view giving up a guy like Bellinger or a top pitching prospect for Dozier as fair value. Trade packages weren't limited to only involving Dozier, and MN wasn't constrained to only working with LA.

 

The decision not to trade Dozier wasn't a bad one, it just may not have been the right one. He has provided plenty for the Twins. The issue is the subsequent action, or lack thereof, to address the reason he was being shopped. When you add that the fact he isn't likely to return after this season, it makes the whole thing even more head scratching. 

[Tomj14]

 

Yes, he has. Ramos was worth 3 wins more than what we trotted out at catcher in 2011 alone -- obviously those wins "didn't matter" in hindsight, but they did at the time. (Easy to forget we were only 5-6 games out of first place in late July that year before we collapsed at the very end.) At the very least, even if the Twins still slide into irrelevance and remain committed to Mauer at catcher, Ramos would have been much, much more valuable than Capps within a year of that trade.

 

I have no regrets trading Ramos, I have and didn't like it at the time for who we traded him for.  He played in Washington for 7 years and 3 times played in more than 88 games. And two of those were his last 2 years. Plus Washington thought so much of him even after those two years they let him leave as a free agent where he had to take a pay cut. And of course played 64 games for Tampa has replacement level.

I believe Ramos is an example of trading prospects and having it not come back to haunt you. IMO

 

[Guest]

I would take that bet, the fact that people are using Bagwell and Smotlz as examples, (those happened about 30 years ago)

I mean the Colon to the expos trade would be another and that was ~17 years ago.

Maybe you could say the Teixeira to the Braves in 2007 for Elvis Andrus, Neftali Feliz and Matt Harrison and that was 10 years ago.

there are probably a few more I missed.

But there have been a ton of trades that include highly regarded prospects that haven't came back to hurt the team, or the player helped the team win or get close to the world series.

I would bet the Tigers wouldn't take back trading Miller to the Marlins for Cabrera.

Assuming front office types are reasonably smart, if it was usually a good deal to trade prospects for veterans, wouldn’t the deals stop, because teams realized that the side of the trade that got the veteran usually won?

 

Once you start excluding certain types of deals from the analysis, you’re usually just cherry picking facts to fit a predetermined conclusion.

 

BTW, the 2016 Cubs would probably happily do again the trade of two veteran pitchers for Addison Russell.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Not fully understanding your comment about Bagwell and Smoltz being traded mid-season. Even if they were traded on April 1 for the veterans in exchange, getting the prospects would have been better.

I wasn't defending/excusing those trades, but rather I was saying how they are not really applicable to the statement in question. Primarily because of era, which I admittedly did not explain well.

 

"Just another reason when you can move a prospect for an established player to not be afraid to make the deal" -- I don't read that as a universal rule, but as a valid piece of evidence observed in the context of De Leon / Forsythe 2017. Certainly it's not meant to apply universally to all teams, prospects, or all definitions of "established players", especially not in earlier eras of MLB talent evaluation and acquisition, under which both Smoltz and Bagwell were dealt.

[Guest]

Here are some veterans who were traded for prospects, when the team receiving the prospects probably “won” the trade.

 

Note that many good examples of the opposite can also be found.

 

1. Frank Viola

2. Chuck Knoblauch

3. Eric Milton

4. A.J. Pierzynski

[Otto von Ballpark]

As an aside, how do you evaluate something like the Smoltz for Alexander trade, where it seems fairly likely that Smoltz would not have turned out as well with the Tigers? Detroit's primary fault might be that they weren't developing Smoltz (or any pitcher) particularly well at the time. According to this article, they didn't even have a pitching coach at Smoltz's affiliate in 1987:

 

https://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/did-a-10-000-dispute-cost-the-tigers-hall-of-famer-john-smoltz-072115

[terrydactyls]

To make a trade it takes 2 parties that want what each other has and willing to part with what they have. Pitching is a fairly universal need. 2B is not. It makes it that much more difficult to make a trade for pitching.

 

Perfecto.... There was very little interest shown by teams for Dozier other than by the Dodgers. This made it very difficult to address the pitching problem last year.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Another look at the Bagwell deal -- Bagwell was ranked 33rd by Baseball America at the time, and having a great season at AA and was a 4th rounder just the year before, so it wasn't just hype or helium. They traded him for 1 month of reliever Larry Andersen, who promptly left as a free agent. As the following article puts it, "Even going by what we knew at the time, this was an incredibly lopsided deal."

 

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2017/8/1/16066426/jeff-bagwell-astros-red-sox-hall-of-fame-larry-andersen-trade

[Tomj14]

 

Here are some veterans who were traded for prospects, when the team receiving the prospects probably “won” the trade.

Note that many good examples of the opposite can also be found.

1. Frank Viola
2. Chuck Knoblauch
3. Eric Milton
4. A.J. Pierzynski

Besides the AJ one I am not 100% sure it wouldn't also be considered some sort of win for the other team as well.

 

Here is Grant Brisbee take on the AJ trade 10 years later.

"A reliever recovering from serious shoulder injuries who had the first good season of his major-league career. A prospect with reduced velocity and strikeout rates. An oft-injured pitcher in the low minors who had never thrown more than 80 innings in a season. This was the package for a young catcher coming off his best season."

[Tomj14]

 

Another look at the Bagwell deal -- Bagwell was ranked 33rd by Baseball America at the time, and having a great season at AA and was a 4th rounder just the year before, so it wasn't just hype or helium. They traded him for 1 month of reliever Larry Andersen, who promptly left as a free agent. As the following article puts it, "Even going by what we knew at the time, this was an incredibly lopsided deal."

 

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2017/8/1/16066426/jeff-bagwell-astros-red-sox-hall-of-fame-larry-andersen-trade

He was also playing 3B and blocked by Boggs, doesn't make it better but could have been in their thinking.

[ashbury]

 

Assuming front office types are reasonably smart, if it was usually a good deal to trade prospects for veterans, wouldn’t the deals stop, because teams realized that the side of the trade that got the veteran usually won?

Agreed. I still keep coming back to the phrase my Econ 101 prof used: "markets will clear".

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

He was also playing 3B and blocked by Boggs, doesn't make it better but could have been in their thinking.

Yes, and Scott Cooper. Still, that doesn't mean you trade him for 1 month of a reliever.

 

Not only that -- the 1990 Red Sox were in 1st place by 6.5 games when they acquired Andersen on August 30th. They were a few days away from starting a 6-14 September swoon, I guess, but looking at the game logs, Andersen actually blew 3 of the 4 leads of 3 runs or less he inherited that month. (The one he preserved was a full 3 runs.) And only once did he preserve a tie that led to an eventual Boston victory.

 

Also, they were swept 4-0 out of the playoffs. Andersen actually picked up the loss in Game 1. Pitched the final inning of the elimination game too, perhaps for symbolic purposes.

[Tomj14]

 

Yes, and Scott Cooper. Still, that doesn't mean you trade him for 1 month of a reliever.

 

Not only that -- the 1990 Red Sox were in 1st place by 6.5 games when they acquired Andersen on August 30th. They were a few days away from starting a 6-14 September swoon, I guess, but looking at the game logs, Andersen actually blew 3 of the 4 leads of 3 runs or less he inherited that month. (The one he preserved was a full 3 runs.) And only once did he preserve a tie that led to an eventual Boston victory.

 

Also, they were swept 4-0 out of the playoffs. Andersen actually picked up the loss in Game 1. Pitched the final inning of the elimination game too, perhaps for symbolic purposes.

Well I guess Houston felt guilty for the robbing the Red Sox and left Santana available for the rule 5 draft hoping the Sox would get him, but the Twins got him instead.

 

[The Wise One]

 

You're right, pitching is more difficult to find. 

 

That said, the notion that it takes 2 willing participants to get a deal done works both ways. Last year was the first time Dozier put together a season that was consistently good from start to finish. He had that crazy end to 16' and he was an AS in 15' but sandwiched between those two was nearly an entire season of uninspiring play. The notion seems to be that LA was coming up short in offering value for Dozier, but I find it hard to believe that if the roles were reversed, Twins fans would view giving up a guy like Bellinger or a top pitching prospect for Dozier as fair value. Trade packages weren't limited to only involving Dozier, and MN wasn't constrained to only working with LA.

 

The decision not to trade Dozier wasn't a bad one, it just may not have been the right one. He has provided plenty for the Twins. The issue is the subsequent action, or lack thereof, to address the reason he was being shopped. When you add that the fact he isn't likely to return after this season, it makes the whole thing even more head scratching. 

The notion that escapes is that a Dozier trade for quality pitching prospects was not a doable one because  there were no takers for Dozier at an equitable price.  No trade is better than a bad one. It is hard to argue against a fictional trade, as there is nothing for one side to argue. 

[The Wise One]

 

Here are some veterans who were traded for prospects, when the team receiving the prospects probably “won” the trade.

Note that many good examples of the opposite can also be found.

1. Frank Viola
2. Chuck Knoblauch
3. Eric Milton
4. A.J. Pierzynski

Could you explain how 3-4 years of Knoblach's Yankee Royal career is > than  Guzman and Milton other than by opinion. That would also hold tryu for Milton's post Twin career versus Silva and Punto. 

[Guest]

Could you explain how 3-4 years of Knoblach's Yankee Royal career is > than  Guzman and Milton other than by opinion. That would also hold tryu for Milton's post Twin career versus Silva and Punto.

 

Knoblauch 1998-2002: 6.2 fWAR, expensive contract, head case.

Milton 1998-2002: 13 fWAR, cheap contract

Guzman 1998-2002 includes a year of -3.1 fWAR when he was forced into the SS too young for a base 1999 team, but he must have been better than the available options and he produced positive fWAR on a cheap contract over the full period.

 

Knoblauch wanted and needed to go and the Twins got better value in exchange. Knoblauch did participate on winning Yankees teams, but [OPINION WARNING] the Yankees likely could have won with someone else. Knoblauch’s year in KC was veteran yuck.

 

Haven’t looked into Milton as much, but it seems he became injured the year before he was traded and then fell off a cliff. Each of Punto and Silva had more fWAR than Milton over the next four years (2004-2007), at collectively much lower salaries. Milton was out of baseball in 2008, a year when Punto produced 2.8 fWAR for the Twins and Silva got a $48M contract from the Mariners (which the Twins wisely side stepped).

 

The winner in both deals was the recipient of the prospects.

[The Wise One]

 

Knoblauch 1998-2002: 6.2 fWAR, expensive contract, head case.
Milton 1998-2002: 13 fWAR, cheap contract
Guzman 1998-2002 includes a year of -3.1 fWAR when he was forced into the SS too young for a base 1999 team, but he must have been better than the available options and he produced positive fWAR on a cheap contract over the full period.

Knoblauch wanted and needed to go and the Twins got better value in exchange. Knoblauch did participate on winning Yankees teams, but [OPINION WARNING] the Yankees likely could have won with someone else. Knoblauch’s year in KC was veteran yuck.

Haven’t looked into Milton as much, but it seems he became injured the year before he was traded and then fell off a cliff. Each of Punto and Silva had more fWAR than Milton over the next four years (2004-2007), at collectively much lower salaries. Milton was out of baseball in 2008, a year when Punto produced 2.8 fWAR for the Twins and Silva got a $48M contract from the Mariners (which the Twins wisely side stepped).

The winner in both deals was the recipient of the prospects.

I think I read your one post wrong as the line about noting the opposite exists before your list. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

The notion that escapes is that a Dozier trade for quality pitching prospects was not a doable one because  there were no takers for Dozier at an equitable price.  No trade is better than a bad one. It is hard to argue against a fictional trade, as there is nothing for one side to argue. 

Dozier wasn't the only piece that could've been moved. I'm not buying the notion that there was no package MN could have put together to bring in pitching. The term equity is being skewed if you're suggesting that Dozier was enough to land a top pitching prospect. No team was going to make that 1-1 swap, and for good reason. It's hard to say no trade was available or no market could have existed if the Twins were asking for a return which was pricing everybody out. 

 

You can't claim that exploring the opposite of the decision regarding Dozier isn't possible because it never happened, yet in the same breath claim that moving him for JDL would've certainly been a "bad," move. I believe judging a decision based on the circumstances when it occurs is most important, but subsequent events/details also effect how it's viewed. If we're using JDL's most recent injury to reaffirm that trading for him would've been a disaster, then the inability to add impact pitching, and the seemingly foregone conclusion that Dozier is walking are also admissible when forming an opinion. 

 

Or we can go the chaos theory route. A butterfly flaps its wings, blah blah blah.....we'll never know how anything could've turn out.    

[The Wise One]

 

Dozier wasn't the only piece that could've been moved. I'm not buying the notion that there was no package MN could have put together to bring in pitching. The term equity is being skewed if you're suggesting that Dozier was enough to land a top pitching prospect. No team was going to make that 1-1 swap, and for good reason. It's hard to say no trade was available or no market could have existed if the Twins were asking for a return which was pricing everybody out. 

 

You can't claim that exploring the opposite of the decision regarding Dozier isn't possible because it never happened, yet in the same breath claim that moving him for JDL would've certainly been a "bad," move. I believe judging a decision based on the circumstances when it occurs is most important, but subsequent events/details also effect how it's viewed. If we're using JDL's most recent injury to reaffirm that trading for him would've been a disaster, then the inability to add impact pitching, and the seemingly foregone conclusion that Dozier is walking are also admissible when forming an opinion. 

 

Or we can go the chaos theory route. A butterfly flaps its wings, blah blah blah.....we'll never know how anything could've turn out.    

No trade was available that was equitable because no trade was made.  De Leon was a top 30-40 prospect near major league ready. That is not a high ceiling pitcher. Trading him for Dozier straight up wouldn't be enough. That is the circumstances at that time.  If the ceiling were higher, the Dodgers wouldn't be trading him to have Dozier for a couple of years.