Falvey's First Stand

Well, if I can trade Dozier next year and get the same deal, why give up the extra year of value?  And the issue isn't that I can get 6 years of a #3.  If I knew that De Leon would give me 6 years, roughly 1000ip and 11 WAR or so, I'd take that.  The problem is that we aren't trading for 6 years of #3 pitching.  We're trading for a pitcher whose ceiling is a #3 pitcher but still has very significant risk of missing that ceiling either due to lower performance, injuries or general lack of durability that makes him a bullpen piece instead.  So that's why I was opposed to a 1:1 swap.  

 

And if Nunez can get me a BA backend 100 type, so can Dozier.  

Are you saying you're fine with moving him in the last year of his deal for a Mejia type pticher? 

(And we've been over the fact that I wouldn't just give him away, but I'd have found a way to make that deal happen with DeLeon)

This is easy to say, but not a legitimate statement. You just don't have enough information to say that unless you were willing to take De Leon plus junk, which is what we can say for sure was on the table. Why do you think you would be better at upping the Dodgers offer than Falvey and Levine? 

The only legitimate criticism on the non-trade is to say they should have pulled the trigger on the deal we know was there. That's totally fair, and we will see how it plays out for De Leon. But any speculation beyond that is bogus - we know the Twins want to deal Dozier.

If your view is correct, the Dozier non-trade is irrelevant anyway, because it would mean that Twins' front office is equally or even more incompetent than before, and therefore doomed to failure regardless of any one transaction.

A lot of different views on this but I do believe that the new FO what they felt was the right thing. As I have stated before if it was a 1 for 1 we had  to pass unless it was Urias and they weren't going to do that.

We needed to have at minimum 3 Very good pieces in hopes that 1 figures it out and is good..... otherwise it is a lose. Putting all your eggs in a questionable basket would have been a bad policy and not doing it if that was the offer was the only responsible thing to do. Given they are supposed to be known for their pitching insight I will trust them at this point.

I predict that Dozier is going to slump now and his value will only plummet. That's just the way it works in #Minnesotasports... *sigh*

I agree, I see a .248 average and 34 home runs.  The Dodgers were smart to trade for Forysythe.

Sure, 99.9% certainty.  Morosi and many others have reported a package.  But it's misleading to keep framing this as a 1:1 deal we turned down.  That isn't what happened.

De Leon plus junk may as well be 1:1. That's the strongest offer that's been reported by any journalist, several of whom have reported that even B- prospects like Stewart were off-limits. The Twins apparently talked to the Dodgers on and off over a fairly long period of time, which seems to directly contradict your speculation that they could have tried harder.

There is no rational basis to say the Twins turned down something more or could have somehow gotten the Dodgers to offer more. None, zero, zilch. You want it to be true, but there's no evidence to support it, and the limited evidence available goes the other way.

You realize that the man who presided over that track record is the one who dealt JDL, right? So I'm not sure why we should grant any more credence to what the TB GM thinks of the trade he just made. 

yeah, I do.  I also know that it has continued and the people running the Rays probably didn't just forgeet it all.  Could be wrong though.

It would (will) be very interesting to see Dozier play a full season in a more fitting line up position with consistent protection behind him (and not pressing to do it all himself)...it could make a significant difference...

I don't consider "junk" very clear.  The only thing it makes clear is that secondary pieces were discussed.  We don't know what they were.

No, we don't know. That's why you can't say that "I'd have found a way to make that deal happen with DeLeon."

There is zero evidence to support the idea that anything meaningful beyond De Leon was available. You have zero legitimate basis to say that Falvey asked for too much, could have gotten a fair return, etc. 

There's no limit to the things you can make up out of thin air to support a point, but it's not really productive.

I was stating what my objective would have been.  Whether it was possible or not, I don't know.  But I would've fought tooth and nail to try.  

 

There were several reports early that stated we came out demanding DeLeon and Bellinger.  Which is asking for too much.  WAY too much.  We don't know if we ever budged off of that any more than we know what the Dodgers were willing to add. 

 

I sure hope we did.

Well, the Twins kept talking to the Dodgers even though we know that 2 top prospects was never a possibility. How long would they bother discussing something if the two sides were off by that magnitude?

Plus, common sense doesn't support a crazy demand from the Twins. Falvey and Levine openly stated their willingness to trade away players and for sure would love to trade Dozier. Those are straightforward realities. They have enough experience to know a rough idea of what Dozier could return.

I can't see any reason to think they have a sentimental attachment to Dozier, whom neither of them had anything to do with until they inherited him in the form of a trade chip. Nor can I see any reason to think they were motivated to somehow fleece Friedman, who they already would know is stingy with prospects.

None of the pieces add up to justify your concerns/theories about the viability of the trade. Every bit of reporter information and logic goes the exact opposite way, that the Dodgers knew there was a weak market for Dozier and bid low because they had Forsythe as Plan B. It makes complete sense for all involved. It's the obvious explanation and, most likely, there's not much, if anything, more to it than that.

That theory makes no sense. First of all, the email leak a little while back showed that MLB front offices make high initial trade demands without batting an eye. Second, there's no evidence that the Twins are even the ones that wanted to build the deal around De Leon - they may well have preferred Alvarez at the center. We do know that the Dodgers wanted to cash in De Leon, for whatever reason.

We have close to zero facts about what the Twins asked for, except they weren't happy with De Leon plus junk. That's all we know. Yet there are posters saying or implying that the Twins somehow blew a deal, I guess because by asking for a B- prospect like Stewart they offended Friedman, who now will never speak to Falvey again?

I don't know why people are writing fiction to criticize the Twins front office. They will make plenty of decisions as time goes on that will be ripe for discussion. 

We have close to zero facts about what the Twins asked for, except they weren't happy with De Leon plus junk. That's all we know. Yet there are posters saying or implying that the Twins somehow blew a deal, I guess because by asking for a B- prospect like Stewart they offended Friedman, who now will never speak to Falvey again?

 

I don't know why people are writing fiction to criticize the Twins front office. They will make plenty of decisions as time goes on that will be ripe for discussion. 

Except we don't know that it was De Leon and junk. We don't know what the offer was so how do we know it was junk?  Also, there is no consensus on what constitutes junk in regards to the prospects.

Additionally, you have no issues slamming people who are criticizing the FO with no idea who the other players offered were and at the same time, also without knowing who the other players offered were, you're comfortable with calling them junk.

We know that the offer was built around De Leon.  Probably the only true fact we know. Passan's tweet seems to suggest that the 3rd prospect was the issue. Whether that means the 3rd prospect wasn't good enough for the Twins or a 3rd prospect wasn't being offered, we don't know.  Either way, I'm comfortable saying that there was more than one player offered, though AGAIN, not sure.

Additionally, you have no issues slamming people who are criticizing the FO with no idea who the other players offered were and at the same time, also without knowing who the other players offered were, you're comfortable with calling them junk.

That's not right. My point is this - based off what we know, De Leon + junk was the minimum offer on the table. Maybe it was a bit more. But we know it was at least De Leon + junk because the Dodgers gave up De Leon for Forsythe, and would at least have given up a bit more for Dozier. 

In other words, we know basically what the low end of possibilities was. We do not know what is realistic on the high end - I think it's safe to say nothing too amazing.

So, to sum it up, there is zero evidence the Twins turned down a good offer or otherwise blew the trade. None. That's why criticizing the front office for it is logically untenable. It's possible that with more information, that would change, but as of now that's not the situation.

This is not a win for Falvey.

He took over the worst team in

baseball, one that sports the worst rotation in the history of the franchise. It is also a team that has had a sucking chest-wound of a leadership void since Hunter retired.

To date, he has replaced one mediocre catcher with another, albeit one who "frames" well, which is a way of saying he helps his

pitchers better than some others do. OK. If that was our only

problem last year--that our catchers did not "frame" well ...

So, now we are supposed to venerate Falvey for standing his ground? He is to be applauded for hardballing the league?

Just what is he protecting, the sanctity of his 59-win club?

I have no real opinion on whether he should trade Dozier. What I

do think, however, is that when you win 59 games, you turn the

roster over. Period.

Oh well. The catcher frames well. Look out, October baseball!