Arms Race: The Search For Young Starters

I think the Dodgers are the only realistic option, and they did pay a fairly steep price (in pitching prospects) when they traded with the A's at the deadline. So I think they will be willing to trade. They have multiple infield holes to fill (Turner and Utley are both free agents), and I don't think they have any obvious internal option that is ready to step in right now. Dozier would be a good player to bridge the gap for them at either position even with Kendrick still under contract. And they have the pitching prospects that would make the trade attractive from the Twins perspective. The big question is if they are willing to part with one of De Leon or Alvarez. I'm skeptical - a high-payroll team like the Dodgers probably keeps their A prospects (potential stars) but trades their Bs (potential regulars) - but I could see a De Leon + something (maybe Barnes?) swap being worth it for the Twins. 

 

The Mets are probably out. I don't think they have the minor league pitching, and given the injuries to their starters this year they probably aren't going to give up a young guy like Matz for Dozier. The other teams with major 2B needs (Royals, Angels, White Sox) don't have the prospects or players to make it worthwhile, unless you think a guy like Fulmer from the White Sox would suffice. Maybe Fulmer and Alec Hansen? 

 

I don't see any other team in the win-now category that has a big need at 2B. And I don't know how much a team will be willing to pay for just an incremental upgrade. Teams like the Giants, Rangers and Blue Jays have solid young players. Are they going to be willing to pay top dollar to go from 2 WAR to 4 WAR at 2B when they could use the same resources to try to fix a more glaring hole?

Good points on the Dodgers -- I forgot about that recent Hill + Reddick trade (perhaps because Hill didn't make his Dodgers debut until last night).  But those felt like "B" prospects at best, and since they just gave up 3 of them, they're probably depleted.  (As an aside -- would you have accepted that return for Dozier at the deadline?)

If we were willing to get a Carson Fulmer type project, I am sure we could find a deal, but I don't think that helps us much.  (Alec Hansen is interesting but a little hard to judge right now -- remember when Shooter Hunter embarrassed rookie league hitters?)  The White Sox may also be in that ~2 WAR range already at the position with Lawrie.

They traded 3 pitchers from their farm to acquire 2 rental players this July... We can go back and forth speculating which teams value Dozier and which do not. You say a lot of teams are set at 2B, and I said before we don't know which under the radar team could think of Dozier as a big upgrade to their lineup. We won't know for sure until we try this winter. 

I did forget about that Rich Hill trade.  But that suggests the Dodgers might be depleted in tradeable pitching prospects, no?  It certainly doesn't seem to make them likely to deal an elite MLB ready guy in De Leon. (Also, curious: would you have accepted those 3 prospects from the Rich Hill trade for Dozier?)

markos lays it out pretty well above.  Obviously you can try this winter, but the point is, I will not be surprised if there is no market for Dozier at the prospect price you desire.

I have to agree but our rotation is so wide open I would give it a shot.  We have Santana, Gibson, and Berrios that I would say have to be in the rotation.  It does not seem like a stretch that Rogers could be as good or better than Gibson.  May is certainly more deserving of a shot but that still leaves the 5th spot open.  Hughes seems doubtful.  We could put Meija in that spot but would it hurt to start Meija at AAA or even in the pen and give Rogers a shot? 

Rogers has looked fine in his pen role, but let's not get carried away.  He's facing a slightly higher percentage of LHB coming out of the pen, and he's seen modest increases in his rate stats.  Nothing in that suggests he is any more suited to starting in MLB than he was a year ago.

I remember things a little differently. I remember that Detroit's farm system had been depleted to the point where most experts ranked it as one of the two or three worst pipelines in the league. This was certainly pointed out as a factor in any discussion of Detroit's longer-term prospects given its aging MLB roster. Prior to the trades, a comparison between the Twins and the Tigers could reasonably favor the Twins in terms of rotation depth.  I remember that Dombrowski made what many thought at the time might turn out to be brilliant trades. The farm system contributed nothing to these trades. Detroit's farm system is still thought to be one of the weakest systems in the league.

 

Most of the talk you're recalling may have come before these trades, although there were probably some who simply didn't realize just how artfully Dombrowski pulled off his final maneuvers as the Tiger GM. Contrary to what Nick is suggesting, aside from Norris ranking among the best 20 prospects, Fulmer was also a top 100 prospect, and Matt Boyd had just earned an honor from one source as best pitcher in all of MiLB. So, all three of these guys were elite pitching prospects by most standards. The one legitimate question people expressed was how ready any of the three might be to contribute to a pennant drive in 2017, and that's one of the reasons that most people saw the Central Division as a tough one to predict.

 

While I agree with Nick and others that the one viable way to acquire a frontline starter is to trade Dozier, I think we need to resist any notion that we're in any position to do what Detroit did. Dozier, despite his amazing run here, does not offer comparable value  to what Price and Cespedes offered at the time of those transactions.

I was referring to the talk from this past winter, mainly about 2016 projections, so the trades were already completed.  A lot of teardown/rebuild suggestions in response to the Zimmermann/Upton signings.  To be fair, I don't think anyone criticized the deadline trades that brought in Fulmer and Boyd (and Norris), although perhaps they overlooked how quickly those guys could be ready to contribute.  LOTS of folks were completely writing off Verlander and Victor Martinez in their assessments.

I am sure the Tigers farm system is still poor, but the point about farm systems is, you don't necessarily need a good farm system.  It's obviously preferable to have one, of course, but it's far more important to have MLB or near-MLB talent and be a good judge/developer of such players.

I agree the Twins don't have an asset to deal like Price, although to be fair, the Tigers didn't either until they turned Jackson, Smyly, and Adames into him.  (Adames still looks interesting for Tampa, but the Tigers are likely getting enough present-day value that they ultimately won't regret dealing him.)

Dozier should be a better asset than Cespedes circa July 2015, but with 2 years of control left, the Twins clearly can't afford to trade him one-for-one for a Fulmer type prospect.

EDIT: this is mostly my personal Tigers tangent, feel free to ignore!

Not at the deadline but maybe this offseason (I'm a big believer in the inflated price at the deadline so I'd want more if they moved him a month ago).

That's fair, although can you really expect an extra deadline premium for most position players?  Teams don't seem to view them as stretch-drive difference-makers (an elite catcher like Lucroy perhaps being a recent exception, although even then, Cleveland gave up more for reliever Andrew Miller).

If you would have accepted the Rich Hill return for Dozier this winter, I think you'd pretty much have to do it at the deadline if it was really offered.  Doubtful you could get a better prospect from the Dodgers, or a meaningful addition to the package, and passing on it probably means those prospects will get dealt in other trades and that deal won't be possible again in the offseason.

I would not have accepted that return for Dozier. I'm seeking quality, not quantity, in a potential Dozier trade.

Thanks.  That makes me even more skeptical that you will be able to trade Dozier.  You're already limiting your return to pitching, and now in terms of prospects, a top ~30 one at that (if not already an established major leaguer)?  Generally teams that are selling aren't that particular about the assets returned.

Maybe so. I'm sure over the winter Nick will write more articles about potential landing places and young arms to target once we get into the off-season. If Dozier can't help shore up the pitching staff, I cringe thinking about 2017's rotation. 

I am pretty much cringing already, based on this club's recent development record.  A Dozier trade isn't going to address that.

I still think the Yankees would be a good fit.  BD is quite the upgrade over Starlain Castro an they have prospects (Gary Sanchez, Justus Sheffield, and a few other A+ pitchers) to get it done. NYY has never shied away from adding talent, and I suspect refueling their farm is both for improving their future team as well as using those assets to put them right back at the top.

What's the "quality over quantity" pitching that the Yankees can afford to give up for Dozier?

They have several top 100 pitching prospects:  Justus Sheffield, James Kaprielian, and Domingo Acevedo.  They have some nice up the middle prospects too.

Sheffield appears to be in the 80-something range at BA and MLB, and those other two guys did not appear in either MLB's or BA's midseason top 100 list (even though BA's doesn't include recent signings, so it's really probably more like a top ~140 or so).  MLB has them at 9 and 10 in the Yankees system right now, although it's an admittedly good system -- the top 7 were in MLB's top 100, although Sheffield is the only pitcher in that group.

I was thinking along the lines of the article, and Vanimal's preference for quality not quantity to help our 2017 rotation.  In those terms, there is no match with the Yankees.

If you are willing to take a mix of non-elite, lower level prospects, perhaps even position players, I suppose the Twins could find a match with the Yankees.  It might look something like the return in the Rich Hill trade.  Although the utility of such a trade would be more questionable, of course.