Otto von Ballpark

Does it make that much sense? The Cardinals depth chart right now has Matt Carpenter at 1B. If they wanted extra offense, wouldn't it make far more sense to shift him back to a 3B or 2B and add a 1B bat? It would seem wasteful to pay a premium for a 2B under those circumstances. (They also just gave up a draft pick to sign Fowler, so if they had wanted to bid on Encarnacion, it would have only cost them a second rounder.) That's why I agree with the latter part of your post -- I think with the Dodger talks stalled, there is an opening for the Cardinals to make a modest offer for Dozier. I suspect they will come no closer to our (apparent) asking price than the Dodgers, however.

Utley basically had the same production as Wong in 2016 by bWAR, so no, I don't think anyone will give up an elite prospect for Wong.

Murphy is considered by some (including metrics) to be a 2B in name only. The Dodgers did show interest in Zobrist last winter, but bowed out. That might give a clue how much they value filling the 2B position, if 4/56 for Zobrist was too much. Even with pessimistic valuations, DeLeon plus Alvarez plus Dozier's salary might be more like 2/56.

First of all, if you are demanding a proven prospect, it doesn't exist. Once proven, a player ceases to be a prospect. Second, again, no one is really off the table as a value proposition in the manner you describe. Bellinger is not off the table because the Dodgers are keeping all their best prospects and only offering scraps; he is likely off the table because the Dodgers are trying to improve their offense, and shipping off one option for another doesn't make a lot of sense. If the Twins wanted outfield help, you wouldn't expect them to be offering Buxton in trade now, would you? Nor would it make sense for a potential trade partner to take offense at the exclusion of Buxton in such talks. From my understanding, I don't think any single Dodgers pitching prospect is off the table (given that Urias is no longer a prospect but firmly in their MLB rotation); but a package of the top 2-3 might be. Which is an entirely reasonable position for the Dodgers to take.

Brian, It's not so much that the Dodgers are deeming guys untouchable because they are better than Dozier. It seems more that Bellinger is untouchable because sacrificing a near MLb ready position player kinda defeats the purpose of acquiring a position player in Dozier. Similarly, Alvarez probably isn't "untouchable" unless we're also trying to get 2-3 other significant pieces. Again, not that the player is off limits but that the whole package is too much. The core premise of Dave's rumor, and minimum Twins fan demand, seems to be De Leon and Alvarez. That's their top two pitching prospects. Unless you disagree with that, it feels like you are splitting hairs about Dozier's projection at best, or railing against strawmen at worst.

But they can still do that, even if they forfeited their 2nd. They have a competitive balance pick right next to it.

Generally I side toward "no" too because of the draft pick -- but maybe this would be a good year to take that risk? Having the top overall pick plus a competitive balance pick makes this other 2nd round pick a little more expendable, perhaps? But on the other hand, I guess since first round picks can no longer be forfeited starting next year, we should have more opportunities to make a move like this in future years too. And Bautista feels like a guy who has a pretty nice bounceback in him yet. I definitely agree it is unlikely from Bautista's end, which also makes the hypothetical a little more appealing too -- a competitive guy like Bautista choosing us could validate our new regime and direction a little bit?

Wong started slow in 2016, but he is a league average second baseman which has some value. Could be flipped again too.

Comparisons of Fulmer to what? I didn't compare him to anyone. If you actually do an inventory of their moves from the past ~10 years, I think you might be surprised at how many were forward-looking (as well had present benefits). They were also trying to win in the present, so their payrolls grew and they put less value on late first round picks for a couple years, but the acquisitions of Scherzer, Austin Jackson, Fister, JD Martinez, Fulmer, and Norris look like a pretty good influx of young and/or controllable talent. (Plus the role players developed internally as mentioned by kab21.) Look at those 2010-2012 forfeited first round picks again. They would have been lucky to get a Fulmer and a Norris with those picks. But you know what? They got great present day value with the FA they signed instead, and STILL wound up with Fulmer and Norris contributing by 2016 anyway. To the extent that their farm system is weak and they are not in a perfect position, I'd argue that is more about "normal" failures of baseball judgement/development than it is about embracing one strategy and ignoring another. They've made most of their draft selections, they have traded away practically zero prospects worthy of regret, and they have added a few good ones. Their failures seem to be a few poor baseball decisions that had little or nothing to do with win now vs the future (i.e. betting on Gose over Travis), plus mixed/poor returns on a few FA contracts that did not involve forfeiting a first round pick (Sanchez, now Upton and Zimmermann, maybe Pelfrey on the modest end). And even with those failures, they have some great MLB assets and are still looking a mid 80 win projection, which is hardly a terrible coda to their 10 year run.

I never said the Tigers built a cheaper team. But Scherzer, Fister, and Austin Jackson were cheaper players when acquired, contrary to the theme you suggested about their deals. The Granderson for Scherzer/Jackson trade looks a lot like their 2015 trades, in fact. Part of their strategy throughout appears to be identifying veterans to move and when to move them. The Tigers had high payrolls because they acquired a future HOFer at age 25 in Cabrera, and drafted and developed another borderline one around the same time in Verlander, and they have so far made a commitment to try winning throughout their careers. Usually that has meant adding salary, but it has also meant looking for ways to acquire talent that don't involve simply waiting 5 years hoping for it to percolate from the draft. And they have done pretty well in that regard -- forfeiting 3 late first round picks to add impact vets for playoff seasons, grabbing Price and Cespedes for a playoff drive then flipping them for very good MLB ready prospects, etc.

But if Bautista didn't come with some question marks like health, he wouldn't even be available to us.

I think you are confusing issues. Opinions of Dozier's future differ, like any player's, but that has nothing to do with the trade talk. He is only controlled for 2 more years, and whatever wins he provides in that time are unlikely to mean much on Twins teams unlikely to contend. Dozier would almost certainly beat Turner's contract on the open market right now, I agree, but that doesn't really change any of the above.

Just speculation due to inactivity, I imagine.

Huh? Turner's career best is an .897 OPS, and he just posted an .832. And those were in Dodger Stadium, a pitcher's park. He is a little light on the counting stats, but some of that was being a utility player and late bloomer.

Then Dozier is getting extra trade value for availability, not for "top 3 talent". I think that is a distinction worth making -- the former, you can wait to see if someone else comes available. The latter, you're never going to find someone better. Also, I think the poster he was responding to was looking for significant 3rd and even 4th prospects. I think everyone here agrees that we want a significant 2nd piece.

Could be. Sickels said Calhoun has a "special combination of power and strike zone judgment" which I think could still play well anywhere -- heck, some guys have made a career at DH with that skill set.

Thanks, I hadn't seen that.

Dozier is a sure thing to be a MLB player, but still has quite a range of possible outcomes. If he repeats 2015, he is worth a lot less than if he repeats 2016.

Why do we keep dismissing Calhoun as a DH? He probably doesn't stick at 2B, but it seems like he would have a good chance of a successful move to the outfield.

It is an interesting observation, but a difficult theory to put in practice. Is it basically just "distrust your trade partner"? Obviously you shouldn't let the other team hype and sell the prospects to you, but the Twins scout these guys too, and will do physical exams. They can have specific reasons to disagree with the Dodgers evaluations and not just a general distrust because the Dodgers are offering them. I have no doubt that some attempts to deal are primarily to leverage perceived vs actual future value, but there are deal attempts (and perhaps most consummated deals) based on a good match of needs and circumstances between two clubs.

I think it was an erroneous report. The thread was started by someone here who said they heard it on Doogie's podcast, but I listened and no mention was made of Napoli. Never saw any mention of it elsewhere either.

Trading for Scherzer and Austin Jackson was getting younger and cheaper. Some of the listed deals were basically lateral moves in terms of age/cost too (for example, trading Ray for Greene, or Garcia for Iglesias). Fister was another minimum salary player when they acquired him. And why should we ignore the deals where they eventually flipped some of their vets for prospects in 2015? Once again, I don't think the Tigers actual strategy so neatly fits your theories about them.

By definition, doesn't that preclude any trade from happening? As soon as the Dodgers are willing to give someone up, you don't want them anymore?

Maybe a better team for 2 years, but the frugal Pirates need those prospects to be competitive long term. They can't afford to give up anything equivalent to De Leon and Alvarez for 2 years of Dozier.

Kershaw is almost certainly going to the highest bidder in 2 years regardless of whether they trade for Dozier now. And it's pretty baseless to suggest that Kershaw's attitude could be permanently soured by whether they acquire Dozier. In terms of "commitment to winning", the Dodgers have made a bunch of moves during Kershaw's career equivalent or better than acquiring Dozier, and probably will again in the next two years (even moreso if they don't sacrifice all of these prospects for Dozier right now).