Otto von Ballpark

This cuts both ways, though -- if you are concerned about Kershaw leaving in two years, and/or big luxury tax penalties coming -- why in the world would you trade multiple young cost-controlled pieces for two years of Dozier? Those prospects will be their key to contending in a potential post-Kershaw future. They already went deep into the NLCS this year -- they have a good team. I suspect the Dodgers want to maintain that success level over the long run, rather than load up further for the short term. (And even if they want to load up in the short term, they might wait until July to do it, when their needs will be clearer.)

Remember, the Dodgers dropped out of the Ben Zobrist sweepstakes last winter, despite reasonable terms (he eventually signed for 4/56). If they truly viewed filling 2B as an imperative for the immediate future, I think they just would have signed him. Nothing has really changed since then to expect they will give up tons of talent for 2 years of Dozier.

Dozier and his agent were very publicly adament about not buying out any FA years in his current contract. I think it is pretty clear he wants to hit the open market in two years, or at least get a full market rate extension.

Why state a preference unless you think it is better?

I don't know, sounds like the kind of thing we'd lambast TR about, for not being realistic/aggressive enough (in fact we probably did, on a smaller scale with Plouffe last offseason).

Cabrera is elite HOF talent showing no signs of age. It's a big contract, but not one you worry about. Norris in fact made 13 starts for Detroit last year, with a 123 ERA+. Zimmermann was actually pretty good until he hit the DL. The question is whether he can get and stay healthy. No real evidence that he's turned into a Pelfrey-level performer yet. Castellanos doesn't score well defensively, while Iglesias and McCann do. They were all roughly 1-2 bWAR players last year. They're obviously not perfect, but they're not in dire straits either. They absolutely should be in the mix for contention; with the right breaks, they are a very good team, and even with some bad breaks, they still should have some assets worth selling if they need to.

This is overblown. JD Martinez is a free agent after the 2017 season. Of course they should be shopping him -- even if they don't strike a deal now, they might set up partners/parameters for a summer deal. And if defensive metrics are to be believed, he might belong at DH where Victor Martinez is still signed for 2 more years (although it could be a blip, or a temporary condition from injury, I haven't looked at it closely yet). I don't think Kinsler has been "shopped" any more than virtually any player is "shopped" -- available for a premium return.

No, of course not. What I said is that generalized statements like "building up from within is better" or "building through trades and FA is better" are bunk. Both can be the right course of action, depending on circumstances.

I also think the degree to which the Tigers are "selling" this winter is overblown. Sounds like Kinsler is unlikely to move, so it's basically Cameron Maybin so far, and rumblings about moving JD Martinez in his walk year.

Frankly, I think any abstract preference is bunk -- it's dependent on what you start with, what opportunities are available, and what you do well. The Tigers built a good core (Verlander, Granderson), supplemented it, and kept supplementing and succeeding. Passing up opportunities to hoard prospects and draft picks almost certainly wouldn't have worked out as well. And on the flip side, taking over the 1996 or 2011 Twins, and you'd be a fool to do that strategy.

I think a lot of the disagreement lies here. I'm not terribly interested in generalities, and I'm not sure your application of them to the Tigers is warranted. Detroit isn't perfect, but I fail to see how they are in that bad of shape. 86 wins last year, 83 pythag, probably an ~83 win projection for 2017. A few bonafide stars still on top of their game with multiple years of control left (Cabrera, Kinsler, Verlander). Younger pieces already in place with success (Fulmer, Norris) or at least steadiness (Castellanos, McCann, Iglesias). Upton started slow but bounced back. Zimmermann has similar bounceback potential. Solid bullpen. Few "black holes" on the roster. The farm system, while still not good overall, has some good pieces -- Manning, Stewart, Jimenez. They haven't forfeited a first round pick since 2012, and the new CBA means they never will again. They're not perfect, but they are still in the contention mix for the foreseeable future. Coming on the heels of 10+ years of success, I'm not sure it's realistic to expect more.

Who's not acknowledging that all moves have risk? The only fact not acknowledged here appears to be that Detroit has done a fine job managing those risks and fielding successful teams the past 10+ years, and are in a decent position today (bringing back an 86 win team with a good mix of stars and young players). And it's unlikely that any of your preferred changes in approach would have benefitted them, overall. I don't have a preference for stocking prospects or chasing veterans; I have a preference for sustained success. Detroit has met that threshold by any meaningful measure, and I tip my cap to them for it.

To be fair, Brian Dozier was once a 24 (future) second baseman who hadn't played above A+. I guess that not being a shortstop, Josh Tobias has fewer options moving down the defensive spectrum. But as a college draftee, his lack of experience shouldn't be too big of a knock on him. Who knows, maybe the Red Sox like him. Although I'd guess the primary factor here was money, and the Twins probably wouldn't want to take on that salary even if they had Josh Tobias to trade.

Was there a significant timeframe on when the Sale and Eaton deals needed to get done? I don't think trades that are that close to completion are just put completely on the back burner for 10+ days, even in the offseason, unless one or both parties aren't nearly as eager as your source made them out to be. If the Twins could get De Leon and Alvarez, but are insisting on Stewart too, did your source simply assume the Dodgers would quickly cave to that demand 10 days ago? If so, why didn't they? Does it make you wonder if your source is misinterpreting something basic about the negotiations, like perhaps the De Leon plus Alvarez part isn't quite settled either?

That's why I've been doubting Dave's source. If both sides were cool with De Leon and Alvarez as the top 2, I can't see how this has dragged on for 10 days, much less 10 days with only vague reports in the media.

I never said FA contracts are guaranteed sources of good production. I only said the Tigers have been very good at getting production out of them. Same with trades. Is that so hard to acknowledge? Go ahead and go back 10 years or whatever and give us specifics, not generalities, about your alternate history Tigers, using your supposedly better approach. Pretty sure you will be unable to produce better results or put them in an appreciably better position today unless you rely on faulty assumptions about draft/development success, and/or make too much use of hindsight judgements to achieve perfection. Burden of proof is on you. Until you are ready to do that, I am done with this conversation.

Do you have a cite for this? I am not sure I buy that our baseball minds were that eager to expand internationally. TR was getting approval for millions to spend on Ramon Ortiz while our international efforts were still languishing. I think the slow to change attitudes of our baseball people probably played just as large of a role as financial limitations. That said, they did notably improve in this area by 2009, so it's not particularly relevant anymore.

Meyer actually may have been on track to debut in Minnesota his first season, until the shoulder issues cropped up. I wouldn't say Alvarez's ETA is "2019 at best." I could see him getting significant MLB action in 2018, depending on circumstances of course. (In the unlikely event we became contenders in 2017, I could even see him getting his feet wet as a late season bullpen reinforcement too.) Alvarez was basically the top amateur international prospect last year, and he's had an encouraging pro debut. There is plenty of value in acquiring that, even if he's not immediately MLB ready. The problem with the Meyer trade was that all of our eggs were in one basket. I don't think anyone here is proposing a one-for-one Dozier for Alvarez swap. And I am not sure why you bring up May, he was a buy-low acquisition for a pretty marginal asset in Revere. I'd absolutely do that trade again now with a comparable asset, although again Dozier is a much better asset and hence we are discussing much better returns for him.

But Santana's value is affected by more than just Santana's performance. The primary factor will be other pitchers available, and evidence suggests that could hurt his value come July. Look at this past trade deadline -- a bunch of SP moved who were not really on the market in the offseason.

Boycott over, but suspended players not likely to be reinstated (at least not quickly): http://m.startribune.com/gophers-players-u-leaders-working-toward-ending-boycott-of-football/407201426/?section=%2F

Dozier didn't even have a .900 OPS in 2016. Obviously anyone can make up a scenario where the leverage shifts to favor the Twins, but that is pretty meaningless without accounting for likelihood. And you scenario is probably not among the more likely. Plus, I could add a variety of factors to your scenario that could largely neutralize the Twins leverage. What if the Dodgers rotation is banged up again, and De Leon and Stewart are already up and contributing? Unlikely the Dodgers subtract from their MLB club significantly to add Dozier, so those guys could probably be more untouchable than they are now. What if the Mets are out of it and make Neil Walker available? What if Forsythe or Solarte has a strong first half and Tampa and San Diego show their usual aggressiveness toward trading? What if the Tigers are out of the race and Kinsler has a change of heart about his extension demands? If any of those things happen, it could largely neutralize the leverage bonus from Dozier's performance

I agree with your hypothetical. Alvarez should be no more valued by the Twins than an identical player with a lower signing bonus. But it's not at all what I was trying to say. The Dodgers very recently spent $32 million on Alvarez. Do you think the Dodgers did it so that just one year later they could include him in a package to add ~$28 mil surplus value at second base? If that was their intent, they probably would have simply bid harder for Ben Zobrist in free agency last winter, no? Skipped Alvarez if they needed to, and kept their other prospects. My contention is, they more likely invested $32 million in Alvarez with the intent of trading him for (or developing him into) more surplus value than just ~$28 mil. Sorta like the Red Sox with Moncada and Sale (most estimates have the Red Sox adding ~$50 mil of surplus value in that swap, above Moncada's bonus). Now, the $32 million has indeed been spent, so they Dodgers could certainly change their intent with Alvarez as circumstances warrant, but it was so recent, and the early returns on Alvarez have been so positive (albeit limited), that I would be surprised if they are ready to change that intent quite yet. Of course, you could make the same argument, just generically saying the Dodgers value Alvarez more, and hypothetical identical player with zero signing bonus could receive this same present valuation from the Dodgers. But this very recent bonus is an actual tangible data point that helps support that generic argument, so I thought it was worth presenting. It's just another data point which suggests that Alvarez is not part of this offer, at least not as commonly described.

You really want to argue that Detroit would be in a better position today, if they had kept the #27 overall pick in the 2012 draft and didn't have Kinsler? This is what I mean when I say you are making a generic argument that falls apart when you look at specifics. Yes, it is better to have the 27th overall pick than to not have it, all else being equal. But adding talents/assets like Kinsler, particularly for playoff seasons, clearly means that all else is NOT equal. Yes, it is better to have Drew Smyly than to not have him, all else being equal, but getting David Price for a playoff run, then later flipping Price in a down season for Norris and Boyd clearly means that all else is NOT equal. (And we haven't even talked about the Miguel Cabrera trade!) The Tigers have actually done such a good job at getting good returns on the picks/prospects they've given up the past 10 years, it would have taken exceptional circumstances for them to even match much less exceed those returns with a more conservative approach. (Meaning, they would have needed to hit on the ~2% chance that one of those 19th overall picks turned into Roger Clemens.)

I did not make that statement. It was an example of how much of a crapshoot those picks are. I said feel free to use the average returns for 19th and 27th overall picks. It will not help your case. The odds of that are not particularly high. Through 2012, there were 48 picks at #19 overall. Only 20 of them have produced more than 1 career WAR (for reference, Boyd produced 1.0 last year), and only ~4 of those were SP who were discernibly better than Matt Boyd. It gets worse at 27th overall, as you can imagine. Only 12 of 48 picks exceeded 1 career WAR, and again only ~4 SP better than Boyd. The Tigers forfeited two 19th overall picks, and one 27th overall picks. What do you think the odds were that those picks would have been SP that exceeded Matt Boyd's contributions in 2016? Meanwhile, with the players they signed in exchange for forfeiting those picks, the Tigers have so far netted ~$45 mil in surplus value per Fangraphs, plus a number of neutral value seasons where the value of marginal wins was high (playoff seasons). With still more value to collect on Kinsler.

Why? They can't really count on buying more prospects, especially with the new international rules. And it's not realistic to spend $20+ mil on every position annually -- developing some pre-FA/arb stars is still the key to building a juggernaut.