Jorge Polanco At SS Could Be Disastrous

Well, we disagree on the trade comps, fine.  I do think you need to find a trade that you think sets Dozier's value.  You might say Dozier and Forsythe are equal therefore that's his value (I would disagree, of course). But I'm pretty much in the camp that the Twins didn't trade Dozier out of fear.  They kept him because they weren't acting afraid.  What you are suggesting is actually doing something out of fear.

 

And I think pretty much everyone agrees that De Leon would be a bad return for Dozier.  Those who disagree with you don't think anything remotely close to Dozier's value was ever on the table - I continue to believe it was basically just De Leon and junk but it might have been just De Leon.  

I took your post as it was written and in the context of the disagreement.  Please do the same, you put at least three thoughts on me that I nowhere expressed.

It's not just we that disagree, the people attempting to acquire these players flat out disagree with you.  You seem to be placing a trade value on Dozier that the last decade of comparables doesn't support.  And clearly the demand this offseason didn't support.  

Secondly, I wouldn't characterize just DeLeon as a "bad" return.  I just would've pushed for more.  And it's clear there was in fact more on the table.  What that more constituted we may never know.  But a top 10ish prospect in all of baseball is not a "bad" return.  

Thirdly, I'm proposing not to act out of fear or inflexibility, but out of probability.  The probability of attaining a better prospect considering known factors that diminish his value (age, team control, likelihood of repeat performance) combined with the recent trade history tells me the probability of ever getting a better deal is about zero.  So what's the alternative?  Keep him?  Well, again this causes a host of issues.  Polanco either doesn't play or poorly fields a non-natural, key position.  It also risks us giving him an extension into his mid 30s.  Or just letting him languish for two years while we get our pitching together in some other way.  

So, based all the evidence we have for hitter values in trades the last decade, DeLeon was absolutely "remotely close", we just needed the icing on the cake.  

But you can't keep running around posting about how we'll "get a better deal" when the odds of that are stacked HEAVILY against it.  Just accept it, you're going to keep him and hope we pull a competent pitching staff out of our rear end.  Or use magic.  Or something.  But it's clear you won't do it by trading Dozier, because something better than DeLeon is extremely unlikely to center another deal.

I sincerely doubt Ryan ever made a concerted effort to move Perkins, this is not the same situation. Why does there have to be a comp for this? There probably isn't one, this is fairly unique.

 

And again, the fear would be in taking the sub-optimal deal, not refusing it. Being afraid would be to take the money and run; saying this ain't going to cut it and laying the bet on larger odds for a better reward is the bold move. No one has to agree with the tactic but I think calling it fear isn't very genuine.

If you're going to argue "we can deal him later", shouldn't there be some evidence that doing so will, in fact, do what you say it will?  If there is no such evidence, perhaps your suggestion is bogus.

And it seems the only people talking about fear are those fearing DeLeon busts.  I don't fear anything, I'm pretty confident in the knowledge that our pitching sucks.  I'm also pretty contfident in my knowledge that it ain't getting better with Polanco at short and no reinforcements on the way for a year or so.  Hell, I take this deal out of hope, not fear.  I turn it down out fear and being gun shy.

You clearly fear coming out of this situation and getting less or getting nothing. I don't fear that, and obviously neither does the front office.

No one is saying they can deal him later, we are saying we can try to deal him later. Maybe we can't, but so what, all we lose out on is De Leon, that isn't something I fear.

So you don't fear continuing to be a bad baseball team by making bad decisions?  Because if you're going to label that as "fear", I'd suggest you have the same "fear" wrapped up in your aversion to a bad deal.  

So if we're fearing the same thing but for different reasons, why do you and gunnathor keep trolling out that criticism?  It seems like an attempt to take out a valid argument at the knees without any real substance behind it.

Well, maybe that was the best offer the Twins ever got or ever will get for Dozier. What then?

I may have taken it, depending on the tenor of the negotiations.  But I wasn't in that room.

Everyone but Dave Cameron seems to agree that taking the offer is a bad deal. But according to this post that's not even relevant because if the Twins say no to a bad deal, they're afraid. So if all the Dodgers offered was Gavin Lux and the Twins said no, that makes them afraid.

My fear of missing out on De Leon borders on apathy.

I don't want to pass up on the deal because I don't like the ramifications for the Twins team going forward.  You call it fear.  

You don't want to take the deal because you dont like the ramifications of taking less value for the Twins going forward.  Not fear.

WTF?  Lets drop this "fear" characterization.  Its BS.

Keep it simple. Friedman texts you and says, 'De Leon straight up or I get Forsythe.'

Since that wasn't what happened, you should try again.  I'm not going to indulge you in hypotheticals if you're going to indicate no effort on your part to make it worthwhile.

It has been your insistence on characterizing a non-move as fear to try to better position your argument; you're using an inflammatory trigger word in an attempt to justify your minority opinion.

Actually, I really don't think that's been my position at all.  I used the words "for fear of" not as being some over-arching point and you seem to have run with it well past the context it was used in.  And other threads are pounding this "fear" concept too, that hasn't ever been the way I characterize things.

I've consistently said I'm doing this because developing competent pitching takes a lot of bullets in the chamber and I doubt we find a better opportunity to add another bullet than this one.  I think the opposition to it has a range of reasons, some I've openly said I understood but disagreed with.  Others I can't make a lick of sense out of.

You don't know that for sure. But fine, Friedman texts and says,'final offer - De Leon + Player X.'

 

Who is the least-heralded Player X that you say yes to? You seem to be saying there's a line somewhere. Where is it?

You don't know anything for sure either.  But only one of us keeps acting like they do.  (Hint: you)  I only claim to know what we know: DeLeon was the centerpiece and secondary pieces were discussed.

I've said before I probably do this for DeLeon and Stewart.  Sheffield or Lux would appeal to me too.  But I don't know what secondary pieces were discussed and that makes a huge difference.

 

 

So, based all the evidence we have for hitter values in trades the last decade, DeLeon was absolutely "remotely close", we just needed the icing on the cake.  

 

But you can't keep running around posting about how we'll "get a better deal" when the odds of that are stacked HEAVILY against it.  Just accept it, you're going to keep him and hope we pull a competent pitching staff out of our rear end.  Or use magic.  Or something.  But it's clear you won't do it by trading Dozier, because something better than DeLeon is extremely unlikely to center another deal.

Yes, everyone who disagrees with your view of the trade thinks the Twins are going to use 'magic'.  

You have yet to find a comparable trade to Dozier (in your view).  You have yet to even find one but you keep coming back to this myth that De Leon was close to Dozier's trade value.  It's kind of insulting how much you refuse to listen to other people - and, frankly, insult other people.  You've made no attempt to understand other people's views and you continually misinterpret them to make points that don't fit.  

To summarize, based on trades made in the last few years, a team that trades off a package comparable to Dozier should expect to receive two top 100 prospects + a couple lottery ticket pieces. 

The Twins made the right decision to not trade Dozier yet you have continuously labeled the Twins as making decisions based out of fear.  It gets annoying.  Your song has been played.  

Yes, everyone who disagrees with your view of the trade thinks the Twins are going to use 'magic'.  

 

You have yet to find a comparable trade to Dozier (in your view).  You have yet to even find one but you keep coming back to this myth that De Leon was close to Dozier's trade value.  It's kind of insulting how much you refuse to listen to other people - and, frankly, insult other people.  You've made no attempt to understand other people's views and you continually misinterpret them to make points that don't fit.  

 

To summarize, based on trades made in the last few years, a team that trades off a package comparable to Dozier should expect to receive two top 100 prospects + a couple lottery ticket pieces.

Well, if not magic...what?  I've asked you no less than three times and you refuse to answer that.  So, what would you like me to assume since you won't trade, you know we can't pay for it (it's not even there to pay for), so....what?  I've heard mike ask you about 10 times too and you slink away from the conversation.  

And your summary is based on completely debunked examples.  You have yet to provide any examples that approximate Dozier.  You have offered package deals (which was not what we were offering) or Lucroy.  That's the best you've managed to verify your stance.  Those have been thoroughly debunked.  So if you're view is going to be a summary of things that don't add up, you'll have to excuse me if I don't put much stock in it. 

 

And your summary is based on completely debunked examples.  You have yet to provide any examples that approximate Dozier.  You have offered package deals (which was not what we were offering) or Lucroy.  That's the best you've managed to verify your stance.  Those have been thoroughly debunked.  So if you're view is going to be a summary of things that don't add up, you'll have to excuse me if I don't put much stock in it. 

"Thoroughly debunked" is not the same as "Levi doesn't agree."  

If you want to find out Dozier's worth, you look at similar trades, and compare the value a team traded away along with its position and length of control and see what the return was.  That's why we know Dozier's value is much higher than De Leon and junk.  

"Thoroughly debunked" is not the same as "Levi doesn't agree."  

 

If you want to find out Dozier's worth, you look at similar trades, and compare the value a team traded away along with its position and length of control and see what the return was.  That's why we know Dozier's value is much higher than De Leon and junk.  

Well the list of people that have taken you to task for you interpretations includes me, mike, spycake, jimmer, and biggentleben among several others.  And all of us have a range of opinions on the matter.  

You have yet to provide a "similar trade".  What trades do you think you've presented that are similar?

(Also note you completely ignored the first part.  I guess magic may not be so far off afterall....)

Well the list of people that have taken you to task for you interpretations includes me, mike, spycake, jimmer, and biggentleben among several others.  And all of us have a range of opinions on the matter.  

You have yet to provide a "similar trade".  What trades do you think you've presented that are similar?

 

(Also note you completely ignored the first part.  I guess magic may not be so far off afterall....)

What's the first part?  Do we ever trade Dozier?  Not unless we get a deal we value.  

What's the first part?  Do we ever trade Dozier?  Not unless we get a deal we value.  

What do you do about the pitching?

And I'd like to know what the similar deals are too, that'd help.

What do you do about the pitching?

 

And I'd like to know what the similar deals are too, that'd help.

The Twins can do several things to improve the pitching without wasting their best trade chip.  Even doing nothing, they can't expect positive regression.  They can improve pitching by getting a pitch framing catcher (if you think that's a thing).  They can improve pitching by improving the defense - esp the OF defense.  I think they've done some of these.  Obviously, if pitch framing is a thing, Castro is supposed to be good at it.  An OF of Rosario/Buxton/Kepler should be an upgrade over last year, provided they hit and stay in the lineup.  I'm not sold on the IF defense and, outside of Buxton, they don't have anyone who should be much more than average at best.  But it's still an upgrade.

If you don't want to role with Santana, Gibson, Santiago, May, Berrios (my guess for opening day), you can sign a FA starter like Hammel, who would probably be as effective as the "and junk" part of any De Leon trade.  

What "similar deals?"  If you're talking about Dozier trades, again, I think you try and look at trades either of similar players or similar expected value.  Ben Zorbrist was traded by Oakland to KC for half a season.  KC received a pitcher in Manaea, who is pretty close to De Leon now, and a relief pitcher/occasional starter.  The Royals were probably expecting maybe 1.5-2 WAR from Zobrist in that half season (optimistically) + bonus for making them a playoff team/WS contender.    Dozier's expected value to the Dodgers - 8 WAR - is four times that of Zobrist's expected value to the Royals.  So his return should be more than a top 50 prospect and a AAAA player.  And so on