Article: Twins Claim Ehire Adrianza, DFA Pat Light

[Vanimal46]

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I *think* Polanco must have been an early add to the 40 man.

 

He was signed at 16 years old. Doesn't that give an additional year of pre-40 man roster time?

 

spycake is usually the go-to on here for service time questions... IIRC, he was left on the MLB roster for a couple days too long in 2014 to not qualify for the extra option year. 

Whatever it was, they screwed up wasting these option years... He had literally 20 PA's combined in 2014 and 2015. They could have thrown a dead corpse on the field to save Polanco's option years. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

spycake is usually the go-to on here for service time questions... IIRC, he was left on the MLB roster for a couple days too long in 2014 to not qualify for the extra option year. 

Yeah, getting that extra option is not hard, particularly in the case of a guy like Polanco. I believe the cutoff is 20 days. Given how little he played, that seemed like a no-brainer.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

He was good at SS with the MLB club in 2014 and 2015. But as you say, "small sample size."

 

Just let the kid play, he'll be fine.

i hope you are right.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Yeah, getting that extra option is not hard, particularly in the case of a guy like Polanco. I believe the cutoff is 20 days. Given how little he played, that seemed like a no-brainer.

 

That explains the mis-management. 

 

I seem to remember him having to be added and kind of being annoyed that some kid starting in high A was getting added to the 40 man, but I'm fairly sure that was to prevent Rule V exposure.  They really should get an extra year for 16 year olds and not treat them in the same way high school draftees are managed.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I *think* Polanco must have been an early add to the 40 man.

 

He was signed at 16 years old. Doesn't that give an additional year of pre-40 man roster time?

 

 

spycake is usually the go-to on here for service time questions... IIRC, he was left on the MLB roster for a couple days too long in 2014 to not qualify for the extra option year. 

Whatever it was, they screwed up wasting these option years... He had literally 20 PA's combined in 2014 and 2015. They could have thrown a dead corpse on the field to save Polanco's option years. 

 

I saw the bat signal!

 

Polanco's issue with options actually dates back to 2010.  90 days is the threshold for a "full season" when calculating for a potential 4th option year.  All of the rookie league seasons are less than 90 days long, so generally rookie league assignments don't count as "full seasons."  But while Polanco technically spent the whole 2010 season in rookie league ball, he actually split it between two rookie leagues -- an early starter and a late ender -- and thus he spent 92 days on an active roster that year.  

 

For comparison, Vargas and Kepler both signed the same summer as Polanco (2009), and both were added to the 40-man roster at the same time too (November 2013), but they both qualify for a 4th option this year because neither played a "full" minor league season prior to 2013.  They've already used all 3 of their options, and have only 4 "full" pro seasons total.  Thanks to 2010, Polanco has 5 "full" seasons and thus does not qualify.

 

So Polanco's usage in 2014 and 2015 did not matter, as far as his options were concerned.  He basically burned options both of those years when he was assigned to the minors out of spring training.  The only alternative for the Twins at that point to conserve his options were to either leave him off the 40-man roster and exposed to Rule 5 draft, or to keep him in MLB for virtually the whole season.  The problem was 2010.  Maybe it's not a big problem -- he's more or less ready to stay in MLB in some capacity now -- but it is an odd one that limits our flexibility.

 

I'd be curious to hear what happened in 2010 that Polanco split the season between two rookie leagues.  He started in the Dominican Summer League, then moved to the Gulf Coast League -- did they want to quickly get him out of the Dominican for some reason?  Even so, I think it would have been possible to assign him back to DSL late in the season on paper, and he wouldn't even have had to report there, and that would have ended his season a little early and kept him under 90 days active. Seems like a pretty big oversight for a guy who was a pretty well regarded international signing (Polanco's $775k bonus in 2009 was actually a Twins record for a few days, until Kepler signed for $800k and of course Sano a few months later), especially considering he stayed in rookie league ball for 2011-2012 too (he wasn't on a fast track like Sano).

 

As always, the Cub Reporter web site offers a great read on the fourth option year rule:

http://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/3521

Edited February 15, 2017 by spycake

[Vanimal46]

That's why you're the go-to Spy! Thanks for clearing up the confusion! 

[Brock Beauchamp]

Awesome, thanks.

 

Okay, so the only "mismanagement" of Polanco is possibly the 2010 season, when he split the season between two leagues.

 

Given how much Polanco signed for initially, that seems like an odd move. You'd expect a team to hedge their bet a bit with a 16 year old and make sure he gets that additional year, especially one who cost $775,000 to sign.

 

But in the grand scheme of things, it's not terrible mismanagement, just a bit puzzling. It's somewhat unreasonable to expect a team to put too much emphasis on what will happen in seven years when discussing a 16 year old player.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Awesome, thanks.

 

Okay, so the only "mismanagement" of Polanco is possibly the 2010 season, when he split the season between two leagues.

 

Given how much Polanco signed for initially, that seems like an odd move. You'd expect a team to hedge their bet a bit with a 16 year old and make sure he gets that additional year, especially one who cost $775,000 to sign.

 

But in the grand scheme of things, it's not terrible mismanagement, just a bit puzzling. It's somewhat unreasonable to expect a team to put too much emphasis on what will happen in seven years when discussing a 16 year old player.

 

the big issue is that 5 seasons thing. For a 16 year old, he's a 40 man add at 21/22 depending on his start date. In Polanco's case, he hadn't played above low A at that point. 

 

Thanks for the info Spy.