Article: TD Top Prospects: #7 Jorge Polanco

[DJL44]

 

Also, how are people saying that Polanco can be a Utility guy?  If his arm is questionable at SS right now then it can't work at 3rd.  

 

3B is a shorter throw than SS in the hole.

[Guest]

 

Also, how are people saying that Polanco can be a Utility guy?  If his arm is questionable at SS right now then it can't work at 3rd.  

Typically, I think a SS needs a better arm than a third baseman. In Polanco's case, I think this is particularly true. He's got plenty of arm to make throws from the typical SS position and from behind second base as he moves to his left. It's the throws from the deep hole to the right that have more arc than you'd like to see. Few throws by a third baseman are from that deep.

 

I also wonder if part of Polanco's fielding issues come from having the extra time to think about fielding a ground ball that a SS has, while 3B is much more about instinctive, quick reactions.

 

It may or may not turn out to be the case, but those are possibilities that give me some hope that Polanco could be useful at 3B eventually. He's obviously not played there enough to know at this point.

[ScrapTheNickname]

 

If he's going to play once or twice every two weeks like Nunez will, then Polanco needs to be in Triple-A until a regular spot opens up.

I get your logic. It's sound. It is no doubt what will happen. I just don't care to see Nunez playing baseball for the Twins. So the answer for Polanco is "later." I do look forward to seeing his mettle tested.

[DJL44]

I expect Polanco to be the first guy called up if an infielder is injured. With Santana and Arcia both likely to make the roster, Polanco might be the first position player called up regardless.

[mudcat14]

 

Maybe 2018-2020. Maybe.

 

But what you're arguing right now is that a guy whose MiLB career OPS is .752 will  perform better than a guy whose 2015 MLB OPS was .751.

 

That's... Unlikely, to be generous. Outlandish, to be more realistic.

 

What I'm arguing is that his performance over the next 5-years will indeed be superior.  In 2016 there would assuredly be a drop-off in production if OPS is the determining factor.  Polanco is unlikely to ever match Dozier's HR ability, but how many 2Bmen have?  Interestingly, both are listed on the roster @ 5'11" & 200-lbs.  Dozier's career MiLB OPS is .779 compared to Polanco's .752.  Every Dozier MiLB AB occurred after his 22nd birthday.  Polanco has had roughly 200 split between AA & AAA since he turned 22.  Isn't it fair to assume his extra-base power is likely to improve as he matures?

 

I've seen Polanco play dozen's of times between his stint in Cedar Rapids (his best MiLB season) and last year on MiLB.com.  He has consistently exhibited an ability to make contact, hit behind runners & use all fields at the plate.  These factors alone make him a better fit for me in the #2-hole right now between Buxton, Mauer, Sano and Park than Dozier's dead pull hit or miss approach.

 

Maybe Dozier can play 3B.  He profiles better at the 6-7 spots in the order.  I wouldn't have a problem with Polanco spending the bulk of 2016 in AAA, but trading or relegating him to a utility role once he's out of options in favor of Dozier or Plouffe would be a mistake.  With Vielma and Gordon nipping at his heel's, I think 2B is his obvious destination.

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

What I'm arguing is that his performance over the next 5-years will indeed be superior.  In 2016 there would assuredly be a drop-off in production if OPS is the determining factor.  Polanco is unlikely to ever match Dozier's HR ability, but how many 2Bmen have?  Interestingly, both are listed on the roster @ 5'11" & 200-lbs.  Dozier's career MiLB OPS is .779 compared to Polanco's .752.  Every Dozier MiLB AB occurred after his 22nd birthday.  Polanco has had roughly 200 split between AA & AAA since he turned 22.  Isn't it fair to assume his extra-base power is likely to improve as he matures?

 

I've seen Polanco play dozen's of times between his stint in Cedar Rapids (his best MiLB season) and last year on MiLB.com.  He has consistently exhibited an ability to make contact, hit behind runners & use all fields at the plate.  These factors alone make him a better fit for me in the #2-hole right now between Buxton, Mauer, Sano and Park than Dozier's dead pull hit or miss approach.

 

Maybe Dozier can play 3B.  He profiles better at the 6-7 spots in the order.  I wouldn't have a problem with Polanco spending the bulk of 2016 in AAA, but trading or relegating him to a utility role once he's out of options in favor of Dozier or Plouffe would be a mistake.  With Vielma and Gordon nipping at his heel's, I think 2B is his obvious destination.

I don't necessarily disagree but I think making the decision today is a mistake.

 

Give Polanco another year, let Dozier help the 2016 Twins win ballgames, and then reevaluate next November. There's no reason to force a decision today, as it will significantly hurt the current MLB squad and its ability to compete in 2016.

[mudcat14]

 

I don't necessarily disagree but I think making the decision today is a mistake.

 

Give Polanco another year, let Dozier help the 2016 Twins win ballgames, and then reevaluate next November. There's no reason to force a decision today, as it will significantly hurt the current MLB squad and its ability to compete in 2016.

 

Your right, of course.  My big fear is that if we wait too long, Dozier & Plouffe will have about as much value as Dan Uggla & David Freese do right now. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Your right, of course.  My big fear is that if we wait too long, Dozier & Plouffe will have about as much value as Dan Uggla & David Freese do right now. 

And if they help the Twins contend in 2016 and 2017, that's just fine.

 

Contending teams shouldn't think too hard about what a player might bring in trade and whether he's "devaluing" in trade value if he's actually contributing on the field.

 

It's one of my pet peeves on sports forums. Sometimes, the smart move is to worry solely about the on-field product and not think about possible trade value. It's why I'm okay with the Twins letting Plouffe walk after the 2017 season if that's the smart play (ie. he's worth his yearly salary in production and helps the Twins win baseball games).

[Loosey]

I don't follow other teams farm systems nearly as closely as I do the Twins, so my question is do other teams have the layers upon layers of prospect depth the Twins do at important positions like Shortstop, 1st base and outfield?

 

Including Escobar they have 4 Shortstops that could be Major League ready in 1-3 years and depending on who you ask around here, all have a chance to be above average.

 

In the Outfield they have 6 or 7 guys that are competing for a spot in the next year.

 

And then if you mix in 1st/DH type guys they have another 4 guys including the current major leaguers who could be ready this year to be contributors.

 

Maybe it's this way across the league and we just put too much value on each of these players since we are closer to them by following them from day one, but it seems the Twins may be coming to a crossroads in in the next 15 months on who is going to be part of the future and who is merely an asset.

[Loosey]

 

And if they help the Twins contend in 2016 and 2017, that's just fine.

 

Contending teams shouldn't think too hard about what a player might bring in trade and whether he's "devaluing" in trade value if he's actually contributing on the field.

 

It's one of my pet peeves on sports forums. Sometimes, the smart move is to worry solely about the on-field product and not think about possible trade value. It's why I'm okay with the Twins letting Plouffe walk after the 2017 season if that's the smart play (ie. he's worth his yearly salary in production and helps the Twins win baseball games).

I think the problem is the Twins haven't contended in 5 years, so over that time getting value out of guys was the way to make the team contenders by accumulating my young prospects.  I find myself thinking the same thing as well instead of just enjoying the production on the field.  I think/hope we are coming to an end of worrying too much about this and soon will have a very young team that is competing for championships with a core that will be stick together for a long time.

[Steve Lein]

 

 

Including Escobar they have 4 Shortstops that could be Major League ready in 1-3 years and depending on who you ask around here, all have a chance to be above average.

 

In the Outfield they have 6 or 7 guys that are competing for a spot in the next year.

 

And then if you mix in 1st/DH type guys they have another 4 guys including the current major leaguers who could be ready this year to be contributors.

 

Maybe it's this way across the league and we just put too much value on each of these players since we are closer to them by following them from day one, but it seems the Twins may be coming to a crossroads in in the next 15 months on who is going to be part of the future and who is merely an asset.

 

I've been saying they were going to run into this problem for years now (most particularly with OF/1B/DH's, middle infielders are good to have some depth). Unfortunately, to my observations, they're limiting the value these players could have in trades or to the Twins themselves by sitting on their hands and doing nothing with all of them.

[Vanimal46]

This situation is way too cloudy for the next 2+ years with Dozier entrenched at 2B, and Escobar + others coming to the rescue in the next 2-3 years. I think this situation could end a couple of ways for the Twins. If the team is contending for a playoff spot in July, IMO Polanco should be trade bait to acquire a player who can help the MLB club this year. If the team is struggling and the outlook for a playoff spot isn't great, IMO Dozier should be traded and the team can plug Polanco in at 2B to let him grow. 

For the time being, it's nice to have depth, but at the same time it's also wasting a potential trade chip for 2-3 years while he waits for his chance at the MLB level. 

[howieramone2]

 

I've been saying they were going to run into this problem for years now (most particularly with OF/1B/DH's, middle infielders are good to have some depth). Unfortunately, to my observations, they're limiting the value these players could have in trades or to the Twins themselves by sitting on their hands and doing nothing with all of them.

Can you provide the names of the players you are referring to? TR would say these things have a way of working themselves out. My observation is the board overrates our prospects and have little understanding of normal turnover/wastage if you will.

[Steve Lein]

1B: Mauer, Park, Vargas, Sano

DH: Park, Mauer, Sano, Arcia, Vargas, Walker

Corner-OF: Rosario, Sano, Arcia, Kepler, Walker

 

Too many players, not enough positions.

 

TR's saying "things have a way of working themselves out" has been demonstrated to me to mean that they're going to wait to long to figure out if whatever player fits their roster or not, and lose them for nothing or have to sell them off for a bag of balls.

 

Could happen with Arcia this year, could happen to Vargas and Polanco next year.

 

If I was TR this past offseason, I would have been offering a package of Plouffe, Walker/Arcia, Polanco, and Stewart to see what it could have brought back and clear a bit of the logjam while those prospects still have some luster and value.

 

Nobody is going to trade for Arcia right now after the issues he's had, and the fact he is out options. This is an example of waiting too long to figure it out. Vargas and Polanco are going to be in similar situations soon.

[TRex]

 

 

If I was TR this past offseason, I would have been offering a package of Plouffe, Walker/Arcia, Polanco, and Stewart to see what it could have brought back and clear a bit of the logjam while those prospects still have some luster and value.

 

How much trade value do you think that group has? Do you think you could get Kyle Gibson for that group?

 

Personally, I think Plouffe has very little trade value (the salary for the 4th year of arbitration is basically the value of a free agent). Walker/Arcia would get you a C-level prospect. Polanco's trade value would be depressed because of questions about his ability to play SS. And I like Stewart as a prospect but, as can be seen on his TD prospect page, he has enough warts that his trade value is at its lowest.

 

I would rather keep them all and take my chances that "things have a way of working themselves out".

 

 

[tobi0040]

 

How much trade value do you think that group has? Do you think you could get Kyle Gibson for that group?

 

Personally, I think Plouffe has very little trade value (the salary for the 4th year of arbitration is basically the value of a free agent). Walker/Arcia would get you a C-level prospect. Polanco's trade value would be depressed because of questions about his ability to play SS. And I like Stewart as a prospect but, as can be seen on his TD prospect page, he has enough warts that his trade value is at its lowest.

 

I would rather keep them all and take my chances that "things have a way of working themselves out".

 

Many of the trades thrown out on this site are like fantasy football trades. 

 

Take two guys who are not quite good enough for a roster and hold little to no value (like Arcia).  Before dropping them, group him together with another guy you are going to drop and propose a trade.

 

Nobody in my league will accept my offers like that anymore.

Edited February 29, 2016 by tobi0040

[Vanimal46]

 

How much trade value do you think that group has? Do you think you could get Kyle Gibson for that group?

 

Personally, I think Plouffe has very little trade value (the salary for the 4th year of arbitration is basically the value of a free agent). Walker/Arcia would get you a C-level prospect. Polanco's trade value would be depressed because of questions about his ability to play SS. And I like Stewart as a prospect but, as can be seen on his TD prospect page, he has enough warts that his trade value is at its lowest.

 

I would rather keep them all and take my chances that "things have a way of working themselves out".

Yeah I'm not sure what kind of return that group of guys can bring back. I agree with you that Plouffe brings back little in return, along with your assessment of Walker/Arcia not bringing back anything special. 

What I agree with Steve about is the idea of selling Polanco this season before he runs out of options. The mindset from the Twins and bloggers of Twins baseball is Polanco has question marks of whether he can stick at SS or not. Is that a league wide assumption that he can't stick at SS, or is it just us? Wouldn't it be nice to sell him to another team with the glimmer of hope that he could stick at SS, instead of 1-2 years later when it's more definitive that he can't play SS, thus his trade value dropping lower than today?

Edited February 29, 2016 by Vanimal46

[Steve Lein]

^ Now, I know it takes two to tango, but I do think you could get something useful back for a package of that type.

 

We're talking 3 nearly consensus Top 10 Twins prospects (Walker, Polanco, Stewart) along with an established major leaguer contributor (Plouffe). Plenty of big trades happen in this fashion...

 

That's the difference I'm talking about. Get something back that is useful, and clear the logjams that makes a bunch of those guys currently not useful, before their value completely dissolves. Thing with most prospects and their value is, they're worth more while they're still prospects (see Wil Myers as a recent example).

 

Once you start using options and team control years, and/or they don't perform, you're left with something of no value, such as Arcia. I started banging the trade him drum three years ago when he debuted, because I'm a big picture thinker and was looking forward to this exact scenario the Twins are in with him now. A situation where they're coming back around to contender status and it's driven by the other guys like Buxton, Rosario, now Sano, and Kepler and Walker in the OF picture.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Steve Lein

[howieramone2]

The trade chips that are actually in demand are Berrios, Polanco, Kepler, and May. If we trade any of those, the TD meltdown on moving Sano to RF will seem like an intelligent conversation.

Edited February 29, 2016 by howieramone2

[TRex]

 

^ Now, I know it takes two to tango, but I do think you could get something useful back for a package of that type.

 

We're talking 3 nearly consensus Top 10 Twins prospects (Walker, Polanco, Stewart) along with an established major leaguer contributor (Plouffe). Plenty of big trades happen in this fashion...

 

That's the difference I'm talking about. Get something back that is useful, and clear the logjams that makes a bunch of those guys currently not useful, before their value completely dissolves. Thing with most prospects and their value is, they're worth more while they're still prospects (see Wil Myers as a recent example).

 

Once you start using options and team control years, and/or they don't perform, you're left with something of no value, such as Arcia. I started banging the trade him drum three years ago when he debuted, because I'm a big picture thinker and was looking forward to this exact scenario the Twins are in with him now. A situation where they're coming back around to contender status and it's driven by the other guys like Buxton, Rosario, now Sano, and Kepler and Walker in the OF picture.

All I am asking is that you put a Twins comp on what they would bring back. I personally would not trade Kyle Gibson for that group. Would you?

 

I also agree that the '(t)hing with most prospects and their value is, they're worth more while they're still prospects'. But what I would add is that almost all prospects have very little value... for the very same reason that you are trying to trade them! I am sure Terry Ryan and his compatriots know very well what the failure rate of prospects is.

 

In a world where Trevor Plouffe has very little trade value, Jorge Polanco will not move the needle at all. Again, I think we are better off keeping all of them and hoping some one of them exceeds expectations than trading them for a #5 starter or some other prospects.

[Steve Lein]

 

 

I also agree that the '(t)hing with most prospects and their value is, they're worth more while they're still prospects'. But what I would add is that almost all prospects have very little value... for the very same reason that you are trying to trade them!

 

I'm just going to respond to this part of your response, because I don't understand it at all.

 

When teams are making trades for proven and impact MLB players, what is it that they send back for them?

 

The answer is Prospects. It is always prospects...

 

 

[Vanimal46]

 

All I am asking is that you put a Twins comp on what they would bring back. I personally would not trade Kyle Gibson for that group. Would you?

 

I also agree that the '(t)hing with most prospects and their value is, they're worth more while they're still prospects'. But what I would add is that almost all prospects have very little value... for the very same reason that you are trying to trade them! I am sure Terry Ryan and his compatriots know very well what the failure rate of prospects is.

 

In a world where Trevor Plouffe has very little trade value, Jorge Polanco will not move the needle at all. Again, I think we are better off keeping all of them and hoping some one of them exceeds expectations than trading them for a #5 starter or some other prospects.

Not sure why there needs to be a comp to prove the players have value.... Even if there was a comp, there's a 99.9% chance it's not accurate. 

I'm not sure what your point is in the 2nd paragraph.... Most teams trade prospects before they reach the failure point. Like Steve said, most every trade in the MLB is a proven player for prospects.... 

Your solution in the 3rd paragraph is to hoard all prospects until they no longer prove useful? Even if there's not an available slot to put them on the MLB team for 2-3 years? That also makes very little sense. The perceived value of these prospects are different for each GM. Steve's point is all 3 he mentioned are consensus top 10 prospects in a very good farm system. There's going to be some demand for the players. How much? Hard to say when we're not involved in the trade discussions.  

[TRex]

 

I'm just going to respond to this part of your response, because I don't understand it at all.

 

When teams are making trades for proven and impact MLB players, what is it that they send back for them?

 

The answer is Prospects. It is always prospects...

I guess I was specifically talking about the prospects you chose to discuss (Walker/Arcia, Polanco, and Stewart). For each of them (IMHO), you are already selling at a low point. I am loath to overly dramatize the negatives of our own prospects, but..

 

 Arcia had a lost year in 2015; Polanco was steady at the highest levels of the minors, but did not have a breakout year offensively or prove that he is a MLB SS; and Walkers K rate has grown to mythic proportions while Stewart's K-rate has sunk to nearly the same degree (as per TD posters).

 

I agree that the answer is prospects, but Wil Myers was the #4 prospect in baseball when he was traded. If you want to suggest trading Berrios or Kepler, I think it is a different discussion.

[TRex]

 

Not sure why there needs to be a comp to prove the players have value.... Even if there was a comp, there's a 99.9% chance it's not accurate. 

I'm not sure what your point is in the 2nd paragraph.... Most teams trade prospects before they reach the failure point. Like Steve said, most every trade in the MLB is a proven player for prospects.... 

Your solution in the 3rd paragraph is to hoard all prospects until they no longer prove useful? Even if there's not an available slot to put them on the MLB team for 2-3 years? That also makes very little sense. The perceived value of these prospects are different for each GM. Steve's point is all 3 he mentioned are consensus top 10 prospects in a very good farm system. There's going to be some demand for the players. How much? Hard to say when we're not involved in the trade discussions.  

My bad for asking the comp to be a Twin... I don't care what team they play for. I just don't like the open-ended "I think the Twins should trade (player X)" without some understanding of what the poster feels the return should be.

Edited March 1, 2016 by TRex