Falvey's First Stand

Well, Mark Appel was pretty much done by the time he was traded, let's hope they Twins don't do that....

It is an interesting list, but you can see quite a few where there were multiple people in the trades. 

still hoping there are good enouhh to deserve them.

If they aren't, the team is doomed anyway, probably. 

So just looking at mlbpipeline list of top pitchers over the years (they divide by handiness), a few have been traded (and I certainly missed some trades) although not necessarily in the years they were ranked (that's just too much work) Shelby Miller (dumb Arizona trade), Jacob Turner, Tyler Skaggs, Andrew Heaney (Dee Gordon trade), Taijon Walker, Mark Appel (for Giles), Trevor Bauer, Giolito, Max Fried, Sean Newcomb (Simmons trade), Sean Manaea (Zorbrist trade), De Leon (Forsythe), Kopech, Lopez.  

 

I'm not sure it tells us much.  Levi and Mike have made the point that top 10ish pitchers aren't often traded for hitters but that's not quite true.  They aren't often traded at all. The bolded ones were traded for hitters.  Most trades involved multiple pieces.  There just aren't that many trades of a guy like Dozier by himself.

I appreciate the effort here, one thing I noticed very quickly though is that these pitchers were dealt at varying times relative to their prospect ranking.  So while it's true that Sean Manaea was dealt, his prospect ranking was not nearly as high as DeLeon at the time.  You might make the same case for Walker and a few others on that list too.  

But, in fairness, both the Twins and Dodgers might be operating like they assume JDL will take a ranking fall this year and are valuing him accordingly.  

But I think we agree, top pitching prospects are hard to land.  Any factor that further complicates that is going to be an issue.  And there are a lot of potential future complications and only one thing that could reverse it (demand).  So I just see a lot of probabilities stacking up against a better package coming along.

Though I hope it does.

Well, Mark Appel was pretty much done by the time he was traded, let's hope they Twins don't do that....

 

It is an interesting list, but you can see quite a few where there were multiple people in the trades. 

Yeah, the list isn't perfect but the return the Phillies got for Giles was insane.  That's the return I want for Dozier.

Massively off topic but have you seen the amount of talent the Astros have given up over the last few years, either in trades or simply letting them walk?    

Yeah, the list isn't perfect but the return the Phillies got for Giles was insane.  That's the return I want for Dozier.

 

Massively off topic but have you seen the amount of talent the Astros have given up over the last few years, either in trades or simply letting them walk?    

the Astros looked a lot smarter before the rebuild kicked in, imo.....

 

 

RE: 2. He doesn't really need to replicate his 2016 success to be desirable. Just like we are talking about DeLeon's potential ceiling, we now have a basis for Dozier's actual ceiling. DeLeon's floor is just being an absolute bust with a 7 ERA like in his callup. Dozier's floor is 20 homers/15 steals/60 RBI and pretty good defense. Even for 9 million next year, someone would bite on that. 

Diminished value has to be considered with this as well.  Regardless of how Dozier performs, he'll be older and less time remaining on a team friendly deal.  He could still be desirable to other teams, but the value they get in Dozier will play into what they're willing to pay to acquire him.  That being said, that can go either way depending on a team's particular situation.  I do think that a team looking short term is less likely to pay on the higher end than a team that's more desperate for long term solutions.

And the Dodgers might have kept talking to the Twins because people they were offering may have been close to bridging the gap.  They may have been holding on to the Forsythe deal in their back pocket until they felt like they had bridged as far as possible and gave up.  And the Twins might well have helped them bridge that but in the end both sides wouldn't budge.

 

None of us know.  The only things we know are that Dozier and DeLeon were the principle pieces and they couldn't agree on the rest of the trade.  Anything further is speculation.  There is a wide range of possibilities that may have been on the table.  As I said at the outset.

Since none of us know, let's just accept that no one knows instead of assuming that the FO is incompetent or not.   I agree that they failed to get the trade done, but that one data point doesn't say whether or not these guys know what they are doing or not.

Since none of us know, let's just accept that no one knows instead of assuming that the FO is incompetent or not.   I agree that they failed to get the trade done, but that one data point doesn't say whether or not these guys know what they are doing or not.

I have never assumed them incompetent.  I question what their objective was, but I fully admit I'm speculating.

I stand exactly where I did a few weeks back - I don't hold it against them (i might, if future evidence leads me to) but I'm disappointed by the result.

Who is they? I think you're conflating two regimes, which I see a lot of in this thread, to somehow bolster that incompetence angle in not trading Dozier.    

As a fan, I don't really care......the Twins have failed. I am hopeful the new regime is better. But, they have two real assets, and both look very likely to start the season in MN. that might work out, it might not. 

I was talking about the rebuild, not just this FO......clearly I am not holding it against this FO what happened before, and to imply otherwise, sigh. I am holding it against the Twins though....

Four losing seasons in a row, 5 losing seasons in six years, those are pretty typical part of the rebuild process.  Chicago and Houston didn't speed out of it, they just entered it earlier.  Most teams have those periods, especially if they can't spend their way out of it.

Four losing seasons in a row, 5 losing seasons in six years, those are pretty typical part of the rebuild process.  Chicago and Houston didn't speed out of it, they just entered it earlier.  Most teams have those periods, especially if they can't spend their way out of it.

ok...how many losing years should I expect in a typical rebuild? I mean, if it isn't unusual?

No idea why the Twins didn't start sooner, that has been one of my criticisms of the past GM....

Four losing seasons in a row, 5 losing seasons in six years, those are pretty typical part of the rebuild process.  Chicago and Houston didn't speed out of it, they just entered it earlier.  Most teams have those periods, especially if they can't spend their way out of it.

This is part of the issue though.  The Twins first have to start to rebuild.  I'm not sure that they've actually accepted their position and actually started the process.  They've been treading water for 6 years.

That's a distinction without a difference . . . I was strongly in favor of new leadership for years, even when people got their hopes up falsely in 2015. Now that Falvey and Levine are in place, saying that it's business as usual is basically an indictment of those two before they have had an opportunity to really change things.

I didn't say it was business as usual, I pointed out that in the past, and so far now, they have not traded veterans for good prospects. I never once said that the new FO was the same old same old, you inferred that from something I never even implied. 

One can be disappointed in the Twins, and hopeful that the new FO moves better/faster. At least I can.

ok...how many losing years should I expect in a typical rebuild? I mean, if it isn't unusual?

 

No idea why the Twins didn't start sooner, that has been one of my criticisms of the past GM....

Well, they were in the playoffs at the time ...

This is part of the issue though.  The Twins first have to start to rebuild.  I'm not sure that they've actually accepted their position and actually started the process.  They've been treading water for 6 years.

I honestly can't get my head around that line of thinking.  It's basically "ignore the draft because everyone gets to draft", "ignore the trading of mediocre players because they don't matter", "ignore trading Span because Meyer didn't pan out",  and just goes to "Why didn't the Twins spend money to flip vets at the deadline or why didn't the Twins spend tens of millions more on the international market".  

Exactly how i feel.  By the time we have a decent competitive rotation, Buxton, Kepler and Sano could all be approaching arbitration and free agency.  Waste.

We should trade them now for a group of prospects that will debut at the same time.

I honestly can't get my head around that line of thinking.  It's basically "ignore the draft because everyone gets to draft", "ignore the trading of mediocre players because they don't matter", "ignore trading Span because Meyer didn't pan out",  and just goes to "Why didn't the Twins spend money to flip vets at the deadline or why didn't the Twins spend tens of millions more on the international market".  

Huh?  You're putting words into my mouth.  I've never said any of that.  Signing guys like Correia, Nolasco, Pelfrey (twice), not trading Willingham, Perkins, holding on to Plouffe an extra year, continuing to sign backside of peak aging veterans holding onto their career type guys and continue to lose while doing it.  At no point does that look like a team that is accepting reality and trying to get younger and improve.  It's made worse by the fact that they haven't hit on their draft picks.  None of those things has to do with money.

For the record, I liked the Span deal at the time.  But that is one player.  One player does not make a rotation or bullpen.  Holding on to mediocre players past their usefulness was a constant problem in the old regime.  Flipping vets on a losing team to one that could use them is how you build an organization.  Even things as simple as allowing the kids to play and learn instead of blocking them or calling them up to sit on the bench is a sign of not understanding where the organization is at.  

Losing 90 games in three consecutive seasons should be a sign of what the reality is.  Another 90 loss season, one fluke season, and a 100 loss season later and things are just now starting to change.  That's at least three years too late and we're still having to wait.  I'm willing to give the new FO time to get organized, but a rebuild needs to start before a team can emerge from it.

If the new front office should, in your opinion, be moving "better" and "faster," that sure seems like you're already drawing some conclusions. I just don't see how you can do that based on the information that is publicly available.

better faster than the old one, that should have been clear to someone that wasn't making assumptions about my intentions. criminy.

Huh?  You're putting words into my mouth.  I've never said any of that.  Signing guys like Correia, Nolasco, Pelfrey (twice), not trading Willingham, Perkins, holding on to Plouffe an extra year, continuing to sign backside of peak aging veterans holding onto their career type guys and continue to lose while doing it.  At no point does that look like a team that is accepting reality and trying to get younger and improve.  It's made worse by the fact that they haven't hit on their draft picks.  None of those things has to do with money.

 

For the record, I liked the Span deal at the time.  But that is one player.  One player does not make a rotation or bullpen.  Holding on to mediocre players past their usefulness was a constant problem in the old regime.  Flipping vets on a losing team to one that could use them is how you build an organization.  Even things as simple as allowing the kids to play and learn instead of blocking them or calling them up to sit on the bench is a sign of not understanding where the organization is at.  

Hicks, Arcia, Buxton, Rosario, Florimon, Sano, Berrios, Polanco, Dozier, Plouffe, etc were all allowed to play - arguably too soon.

I agree that Molitor isn't a great manager and his bungling of Meyer, Arcia and Polanco  (and a lesser extent Kepler and May) are the primary reasons.  But Correia and Pelfrey weren't blocking anyone.  We traded nearly everyone that wasn't nailed down with a handful of exceptions - Hammer being one, but again, he also didn't have much trade value. The only legit trade chip we held onto was Perkins and, unless he is traded, Dozier.  We didn't keep Plouffe for a rebuilding year.  

 

 

Losing 90 games in three consecutive seasons should be a sign of what the reality is.  Another 90 loss season, one fluke season, and a 100 loss season later and things are just now starting to change.  That's at least three years too late and we're still having to wait.  I'm willing to give the new FO time to get organized, but a rebuild needs to start before a team can emerge from it.

Kind of off topic but what do you think should have been done at the end of the 2013 season that wasn't?  I get it, you'd fire Ryan after two years on the job and Gardy.  Fine, then what?  Trade Perkins, I imagine. Maybe capitalize on Dozier since he's not likely to be a 3.5 WAR player again. And you have the 5th pick in the draft.  You have about an 85m payroll.  Ownership might let you spend another 20.  But it was a weak FA class - http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014-mlb-free-agent-tracker Nolasco/Jiminez/Garza all signed the same 4/50 deal and were tied for second on the SP salary.

With the benefit of hindsight, what do you do?