Otto von Ballpark
-
Posts
20,669 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
74
Content Type
Profiles
Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Otto von Ballpark
-
But a year ago, when Frazier was actually traded, he was the same age as Dozier is now, with 2 years control remaining. That is certainly a better trade comp than the Sale and Eaton deals that keep getting trotted out. Also should be noted that the Dodgers kicked the tires on Frazier last winter and went a different direction. Agreed that Frazier currently isn't a great comp.
-
No, that's not in the media, it's a fan blog. There has been plenty of fan speculation here and elsewhere about Stewart, Calhoun, etc. But no media reports about what role they are playing (if any) in the actual negotiations.
-
"Feeling like he was 16 years old" actually might explain his awkward play.
-
Cardinals "Very Much In" on Brian Dozier
Otto von Ballpark replied to Seth Stohs's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
Capps was a bad deal, but irrelevant to the current conversation. May was a buy-low candidate, his modest prospect stock was weak at the time. Worley was kind of a buy low in the same package, he had already started to fade and had an injury. Meyer was on the rise, and a good argument why it's best not to trade a controllable asset 1-for-1 for a single prospect. -
Pretty explicitly? It's a tweet with no new information. Heck, his source is probably LEN III or Heyman, there is no new information here. No one in the media has commented at all on the availability of Stewart, Calhoun, Sheffield, etc. I get that they're less significant than De Leon, Alvarez, Bellinger, and Buehler, but I wouldn't call them "insignificant" 2nd or 3rd pieces in trade.
-
Again, that doesn't seem to be the suggestion. I bet Nightengale is referring to the Twins wanting "more" from the group of De Leon, Alvarez, Bellinger, and Buehler, just like Heyman and Neal were doing. I don't know if anyone has provided information about the availability of Stewart, Calhoun, Sheffield, etc.
-
ESPN: Dozier Ranked 9th-Best 2B in Baseball
Otto von Ballpark replied to Seth Stohs's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
I presume the methodology is mostly ignoring age and contract. Like, who are the best 2B as of right now? I'd put LeMahieu behind Dozier. But still, he's probably in a group of about 5 guys who would have a claim on any spot 4 through 8. I wouldn't worry too much about the precise rank at that point. Altuve has been pretty great, and Cano and Kinsler have been so good for so long and didn't look like they were slowing down last year. No shame in being in the group below those 3. -
Do you consider Eaton and Sale "young and cost controlled"? If Dozier's not "young and cost controlled" then his value is going to take a hit compared to those guys, right? If you think Dozier with 2 years left is not appreciably different in value than Dozier with 1 year left, couldn't that support the Dodgers position? Seems like a lot of Twins fans here are demanding a premium based on the 2 years when you are arguing it doesn't matter much. Then the timing of a trade is just a bet on performance, and if he doesn't come out of the gate hitting like the 2nd half of 2016, his value is going to drop from performance, even if it is mostly unaffected by remaining control. How about Chapman vs Miller this past summer? Miller returned more than Chapman (and even got on offer of Giolito), largely due to the extra 2 years of control, no?
-
And I'm saying the Rays didn't have a Moncada/Kopech comparable "upside" package available to them, so it's not a viable excuse for the value difference.
-
Well, there are analysts who look closer and at least try to peg values accurately accurately according to the market. Dave Cameron has been wrong plenty, but I'll be darned if he didn't analyze Chris Sale's value back in July and perfectly peg the return as Mocada plus Kopech. Throwing out ideas without any real research, understanding, or track record isn't really worth much (and I know because I've thrown out plenty of such ideas ).
-
You are arguing something completely different from my point. Delmon circa 2006 and Meyer circa 2014 were ranked much higher than Alvarez and Buehler right now. Delmon and Meyer would not have been "second pieces" in trades at those times, they would have been headliners. Alvarez and Buehler, on the other hand, are ranked lower and capped at "second piece" status because of the recency of their signings and their inexperience. Whatever speculative potential is fueling those modest ratings right now will still be present in 6-12 months almost regardless of short term performance. They've got nowhere to go but up. Kohl Stewart kinda proves my point -- he was so green in 2013 he wasn't going to be a trade headliner anyway, and I'd guess his value was more or less the same a year later even after a so-so full season debut (he dropped off BA's list, but his ranking actually improved on the MLB and BP lists). There would have been no real upside to dealing him after 2013 as compared to after 2014.
-
That's true, and I don't think I've ever been so anxious to see offseason prospect lists roll out. But my point was, regardless of those rankings, the Dodgers have almost zero urgency to include Alvarez or Buehler as second pieces right now. They are so young and new to pro ball that even without a great performance in 2017, they will still have similar value as second pieces (at minimum) for the next year or so. With any luck, one of them could rise to headline a deal by the deadline or next winter. Unless they are specifically pessimistic about one or the other, including them as a second piece right now is almost certainly selling low, like the Padres bundling Trea Turner in a package shortly after drafting him. But that surplus of top prospects cuts both ways -- sure, they have the resources to make a deal happen now if they want, but they can also be confident in waiting to make a deal at the deadline or next winter. And their team is good enough that waiting to address 2B isn't going to hurt them much in the meantime. Viewed like that, it's less about them trying to rip off the other side, and more about them waiting to see how their owns needs develop (particularly around De Leon and Stewart, who could help the Dodgers immediately too), and perhaps betting that the Twins/Dozier or Rays/Forsythe will falter out of the gate and improve the Dodgers bargaining position.
-
They are not really similar at all. I know prospect rankings and age aren't the be-all, end-all, but you don't have to subscribe much to them to see a stark difference between Moncada/Kopech and Smyly/Franklin circa 2014 in terms of value and potential. If you really believe the Rays turned down a package led by arguably the #1 and #30 prospects in the game at the time to take the Smyly/Franklin led package, I don't know what to tell you (other than there are zero reports that suggest you are correct).
-
There has been much discussion about how Dozier's value might change over the next year. Plenty of digital ink has been spent on De Leon too. But very little has been said about the value forecasts of Alvarez and Buehler. A lot of people here want them to be added as valuable second pieces to this deal, but they signed so recently and with so much potential, their value has almost nowhere to go but up from that point over the next year. It would be like asking the Twins circa December 2012 to add Buxton to a trade package. (A real world example of a team getting burned by this might be the Padres including Trea Turner in a trade package -- he almost certainly wasn't losing value over the next year, and in fact he became one of the top prospects in the game in that time instead.) So it makes sense that the Dodgers would be reluctant to part with those guys as second pieces at this moment. Based on potential alone, they can easily be equivalent second pieces at the deadline or again next winter. Or with a good showing in the minors, they could quickly rise to being a primary piece like De Leon too.
-
Yeah, but they basically turned that around and not only rented Latos like you mentioned, but they also got Alex Wood, Luis Avilan, and Jose Peraza (the latter of whom they flipped for Montas, who in turn got flipped for Hill and Reddick at the deadline). They got great value for moving Olivera early.
-
The source for that (a columnist at Bleacher Report) has been posting 3-5 trade ideas every week of the offseason. He has posted 34 such trade ideas this winter, probably involving 100+ different players and prospects in total. Do you know how many guys have actually changed teams according to his predictions? One: McCann to the Astros, although he didn't correctly peg any of the Yankees return. I think only three other players/prospects across all of those other trade ideas have changed teams at all (Sale, Giolito, and Wade Davis), and of course to different teams than he predicted. Even in his article "Impact MLB Deals Most Likely to Be Pulled off During 2016 Winter Meetings" he only got 1 thing remotely correct out of 5 (Chapman re-signing with the Yankees). He's fishing for clicks, not trying to judge fair value trades.
-
Technically you are correct, but due to his age (30 at the time), Olivera wasn't subject the bonus pools. He was much more like a MLB FA transaction, thus his subsequent trade means very little in regards to how they view/treat a 20 year old amateur prospect like Alvarez.
-
Projection/prediction is not "ceiling" though. That is what the other poster here was claiming.
-
What media is informing their endorsement of your trade proposal? What media is informing yours?
-
Thanks for the link. Not much of a track record on that writer (says it is the first installment of a trade ideas column) but it is interesting. Sounds like the writer might be a bit more eager to sell low on Buehler than the Dodgers would be, but that seems closer to an acceptable deal than AZ's proposal here.
-
So... closed group of internet commenters. Poster trying to prove a point can absolutely vouch for them being knowledgeable and impartial, though! No source is perfect, but if your proposal is really that fair, I think you could cite a publically published, non-anonymous, non-homer piece advocating the same somewhere too. It's not like there's a shortage of such people writing about baseball -- many have been linked in these threads already, pegging a Dozier trade return as far less than what you are suggesting. (Even Dave's questionably optimistic source isn't going as far as your proposal.)
-
Sheffield is not definitively rated higher than Stewart, see the Fangraphs article I referred you to earlier. Losing the MLB ready SP Stewart would almost certainly be more painful to the Dodgers than losing Sheffield, particularly when coupled with losing fellow MLB ready SP De Leon. What forum was that? I don't think "rabid fans" necessarily means they are well-reasoned fans. A lot of "rabid fans" of MLB don't really follow the business or minor league aspects of the sport, so they pretty much always endorse whatever produces the most immediate and obvious MLB results.
-
Moving Dozier Needs to Include Creativity
Otto von Ballpark replied to Jeremy Nygaard's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
Any word on when your clients Mark Trumbo and Chris Carter will be signing this winter? -
You would be hard-pressed to find an impartial observer who would endorse that trade from the Dodgers side. Even Dave's source, who has been more optimistic about the return than anyone in baseball media, isn't endorsing that as the likely deal.
-
More inaccurate than interesting. Mejia was only barely "top 100" on BA's midseason list which excludes new draftees and signings. More accurately he was probably #130-140 or so in the full population of prospects, and a lot of evaluators consider rankings around that point to be pretty fluid (meaning, he could be one of 80 players ranked 120-200 that all have roughly equal claim to be ranked anywhere in that range). Meanwhile, De Leon was consensus top 30 before last year on the proper preseason lists, and judging by MLB's list he hasn't slipped that much for 2017. And there isn't really any question that the Dodgers would part with others in addition to De Leon, it's just a question of how many and what quality. There is really no meaningful parallel to be drawn between the Nunez and potential Dozier deals.
