TheLeviathan

That's arguing that he is less likely to have it happen. Which might be true, but it's still a true statement that IF he gets hurt or stinks his value will drop. Just as much true as it is for DeLeon. Arguing that an injury is more or less likely for one or the other is another matter entirely. I don't disagree DeLeon has a higher risk of injury. For sure that's true. What seems to be difficult for the other side of this issue is acknowleding how quickly Dozier's play could impact his value.

All players lose value if they are hurt or stink. How is Dozier any more immune to that argument than DeLeon?

If Dozier is being valued externally as his non-2016 version, than an offer with JDL is almost instantly a coup. Dozier, even with his absurd 2016 season pushing things up, is a 16 WAR player since 2013. Roughly the same as Ben Zobrist. Ben Zobrist, when traded to the Royals, landed a prospect in Manaea who ranged from 50-80 on Top 100 lists and Aaron Brooks who was never on a prospect list. So if you are suggesting that Dozier is not being considered as his 2016 self, an offer of JDL far exceeds the last trade that was executed for a similar type of player. And that doesn't include the difference in value if pieces 2 or 3 are even remotely decent prospects. That's just further icing on the cake relative to Zobrist. In fairness, Zobrist was a rental, but I don't think that even comes close to offsetting the difference. Dozier is almost certainly at the apex of his value also. And if he's sitting at May 31st looking like a bench player like he was in 2016, he will take a monumental drop in value. And, even if he somehow maintains his production, he will still lose value by virtue of aging and having his team control clock tick down. With Dozier there is built in value to be lost the longer we wait once ST starts. It's going to happen. The only thing that would counteract it would be for him to out-perform 2016 by a healthy margin. I don't see anyone suggesting that is going to happen. But with DeLeon the value drop has to happen with an injury or a lack of performance, but that isn't really saying anything of significance because Dozier suffers from those same two issues should they happen to him as well. Being a veteran doesn't make his value immune to dropping if he stinks or is hurt. That's what I hear is the knock on DeLeon. That's fine, but that works for Dozier too. The extra risk for Dozier is in the high expectations of last year and his age and team control. Those factors aren't changing and only one of them does he have any control over.

Fair point. If I was going to deal them from a position of depth I'd just choose a different target than Dozier. One with more of a track record.

Then you and I need to talk about buy low and sell high, If I'm the Dodgers, I'd rather give Kinsler a contract extension than overpay for Dozier on the chance 2016 wasn't a fluke.

Right you simply cannot acquire high level pitching without taking risks. That includes the risks of giant FA contracts. Or trades. Or trying to flip FAs for former prospects that are on hard times. And we know this. Kohl Stewart is an example. So is Tyler Jay. If your opposition to trading Dozier is that you want to get a "sure thing" pitcher in return, you should probably just drop the facade and admit there is no trade you'd accept.

My understanding is that we were asked for Garza/Baker and Kubel and we rebuffed it. Maybe my recollection is wrong. Either way, I think you at least see my point - given what Dozer is (a guy with one elite season and a lot of inconsistency) we might want to temper our expectations a bit. If the reverse was true, we'd laugh at the very idea of being asked for Bellinger and Deleon. We'd block the damn number from calling us back we'd be so insulted at the idea. So yeah, it needs to hurt the Dodgers a bit more IMO, but probably not much more.

It would make a lot of sense. Unless the Dodgers just refuse to pay that much for a guy based on a career year. I know this is a Twins forum, but if the situation were reversed - what would we say if we analyzed Brian Dozier? Would we pay a Top 25 prospect and another in the Top 100? Maybe we'll get that, but the notion that it's a "bad deal" if it's anything less strikes me as a fundamental misread of the value of Brian Dozier. A misread we may later regret.

Maybe we never really moved past this point.

When that number comes out I'm on my way, life savings in hand, to bet the #/!$ out of that under.

So now a reputable source is saying the Twins want DeLeon and Bellinger huh? That makes way more sense than this 1:1 crap. Also puts these conversations in a different light if true.

Not moving Dozier compounds the problems thoygh. You let an asset languish when you had an opportunity to maximize it. Again, how many times need we learn our lesson on this? Sometimes doing nothing is the worst idea. Even if you don't love the return, the status quo is bound to fail. We can't pitch. You can't win if you can't pitch. And our best internal pitching options won't be here until Dozier is likely gone. Not trading him is going to feel like Perkins does now. Or like the Sano in the outfield thing did a month into last year. Some of us were screaming about how terrible that idea was and the tone of the counter arguments rings all too familiar here. By many of the same posters too. If this deal doesn't happen, we will rue it later. I guess I would've hoped last year had taught or team and our community here some lessons.

So now a top 25 prospect isn't enough we need, what? Multiple top 50 specs? What's enough?

All the reporters are recycling the same mush mouthed report by LEN. I don't buy it, it doesn't pass the smell test. Dozier will age right? His contract will reduce in team control right? It's not speculation his value will decrease, it's near certain fact. Unless you think he's going to hit 50 home runs or agree to an extension at the same price or some other ridiculous notion he will lose value.

And yet many experts disagree with you.

For one, I don't buy the 1:1 deal. That isn't the offer on the table. Your sense of value seems to ignore the enormous risks in holding on to Dozier. I understand the risks with DeLeon, I accept them because we need upside. He flops and we suck. We keep Dozier and we suck. But if we deal Dozier we might net a stud. There is a solid chance of that. Far more solid than some mythical better deal we can't even imagine coherently much less actually attain.

Part of how you are determine bad deal is, in part, on the basis of expecting similar or better future offers. You don't get to do that and then hide behind future uncertainty. That's my whole point about probability and the probabilities are decidedly against your position.

To me he is both, which is ideal. But if it's high ceiling vs high floor, I pick ceiling everytime.

More worrisome to me is that they are both being hardasses.

Ok, maybe Newcomb could fit as a centerpiece. Now tell me why the Cardinals don't care? They don't appear to have any interest and their roster doesn't scream need either. Could that change? I guess, but you have to admit how flimsy the odds are right? You are several layers down in your hypothetical better deal now.

I just hope that line isn't TOO hard. I'm starting to think it might be.

Not in the same realm as DeLeon. And your explanation emphasized floors over ceilings. Maybe that's the real impasse. I'm long done with that thinking.

Why are we aiming for high floors over high ceilings? Have we still not learned our lesson?

I agree that is a possibility Brock. But DeLeon is still a valuable asset to have with far more flexibility than a 30 year old 2B.

Prior to the offseason a top 50 prospect was the ideal centerpiece and now that we have that (top 25 even!) we bemoan it as not enough. And we heap on top of that the weird (and rampant) belief that Dozier's value will endure and that some mythical better deal awaits us. Don't like DeLeon? Alright, I get it, shoulDer injuries are scary. But he is a near ready, top 30 prospect. Who is going to top that? Because if you can't actually identify them, we should drop the "better deal in the next year" talk and get real.