Potentially Trading Polanco and Kepler and the possibilities Twins could use QO, after Teoscar signing

[cmoss84]

6 minutes ago, Hawkeye Bean Counter said:

Giving a Qualifying offer doesn't mean the Twins will be spending $20 to $25 million on kepler.  The strategy would be that you would get another late 1st round draft pick like we did with Sonny Gray.  

Hasn't the deadline passed for offering a QO? Or are you talking for next year?

Also, they would only get that comp pick if Kepler signs elsewhere for at least $50.

[Hawkeye Bean Counter]

3 minutes ago, cmoss84 said:

Hasn't the deadline passed for offering a QO? Or are you talking for next year?

Also, they would only get that comp pick if Kepler signs elsewhere for at least $50.

Correct on all fronts.  We either need very good trade compensation for Kepler,  or hope he has a good season that allows us to use a QO,  he rejects and signs for north of $50 million.  As this thread shows though, Kepler is a complicated player that has very different views on his value to a team.  You have myself who thinks he has immense value while others think he is significantly less.  A lot will come down to his offensive performance and whether he can duplicate his 2nd half.  

[old nurse]

11 hours ago, August J Gloop said:

Remember that babip is luck until it's a player you don't like then it's weak contact. 

https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/savant-player/max-kepler-596146?stats=statcast-r-hitting-mlb

They have a fun data viz animation that dispels the idea that Max's low babip is a product of bad contact. Here is the key element: 

Player		14634	2714	202	7.4	5.2	89.7	115.4	14.7	32.0	.252	.422	.323	.330	.361	40.4	18.4	10.1
MLB					6.9	4.7	88.4	122.4	12.2	33.1	.245	.406	.316	.315	.369	36.3	22.1	8.4

Dang the headers keep falling off. His Average ext velo is above mlb average, his hard hit is 4% better, etc. Max is a polarizing figure, and I suppport his trading, but not because I think he's bad, but because I think he can bring value in a trade and his production can be replaced. 

I do not think he's a player that would ever be considered for a QO since so much of his value is tied up in Defense and defense is so extremely fungible.   

BABIP is luck is one of those fallacies people have said so many times people believe it. LD% correlates highly with a high BABIP. FB% and IFFB is a negative correlation . Speed is a contributing factor. All the information is out there. BABIP for pitchers is normalized at about 1000 innings. Of course than they get injured and there is a new normal

[saviking]

On 1/9/2024 at 1:03 PM, Hawkeye Bean Counter said:

So Teoscar signed for what is effectively a 20 million 1 year contract.  I have had this discussion with many on the board,  its that Kepler and Polanco if they have healthy good years,  are better players than Teoscar and would likely be worthy of QO.   Now there was no draft compensation included in Hernandez's signing,  I understand that,  but Polanco and Kepler are better players than he is by a significant amount.  

Any trade will need to bring back significant compensation,  as the new team, may be able to offer the QO themselves, or the Twins can keep and hope for healthy good season from the players.   I am fine with a trade, but there value not only to the team this year, but also potentially with QO  and draft compensation is significant.  

I don't look so crazy anymore do I LOL.    

You don't look crazier than the rest of us, that's for sure .. But then, that might be a low bar 😂

[bird]

If I’m the GM, the QO is not even a remote consideration with regards to either Polanco or Kepler.

My first consideration is whether I project that I can replace them out of surplus assets and get like or better production. In my view, the answer is yes on Polanco, with Julien for now and perhaps Lee or Lewis later.

Kepler is more complicated, but hear me out. I’d consider moving Lewis and/or Kirilloff to the OF if I wasn’t projecting that some combo of Wallner, Austin, Castro, Gordon, and Larnach, expecting improvements by a couple of them, would give me like production, offensively. Part of the calculus would involve assessments of Miranda and Lee this spring.

If I wasn’t confident about it, Kepler stays. But if I’m confident, I’m salivating to pick up prospect packages for each of them that, in our projections, add up to future production that surpasses what those players gave the franchise. If I get a talent premium due to how far the prospects are from MLB, I like the deals even more, because I have my replacements for Polanco and Kepler.

[JD-TWINS]

On 1/10/2024 at 9:12 AM, chpettit19 said:

Teams don't pay for corner outfield defense. This is a discussion about whether or not Kepler would be likely to receive a qualifying offer or get a similar contract to Teoscar Hernandez. There is absolutely room for arguments that Kepler's defense being the main driver of his value hurts his value. Do you have a bunch of examples of QOs or $23.5 mil, 1 year deals being handed to guys who specialize in corner outfield defense? Because I have a whole bunch for corner outfield guys who are terrible defensively, but can absolute mash a baseball. Including Teoscar Hernandez.

2023 Offensive Teoscar:

625 AB’s - 211 Strikeouts - .258 BA - 26 HR - .305 OBP - 106 OPS+ ………2.1 WAR

2023 Offensive Max:

434 AB’s  - 106 Strikeouts - .260 BA - 24 HR - .332 OBP - 121 OPS+ ………..2.9 WAR

I don’t think either guy is worth $20-$22M/year. The Dodgers are creatively paying $15M this year and an $8.5M retirement bonus through the ‘30’s.

To me, Teoscar is way overrated! Not great D & 211 K’s with 2 more HR than Kepler in nearly 200 more AB’s…….doesn’t seem like a very effective masher when viewed in big picture……….in ‘23 GALLO had 21 HR in 282 AB’s & plays a much better OF than Teoscar. Joey’s worth about $1M per year.

Twins will never offer Max a QO that could be accepted at $20-$22M/year……..Wallner - Rodriguez - etc. will be the more prudent option in RF. IMO, If he’s playing well at the break & team’s OF depth is thin, they may make him an offer to extend………if OF depth is present in July, they’ll trade him to better the team & to get some return.

[JD-TWINS]

15 minutes ago, bird said:

If I’m the GM, the QO is not even a remote consideration with regards to either Polanco or Kepler.

My first consideration is whether I project that I can replace them out of surplus assets and get like or better production. In my view, the answer is yes on Polanco, with Julien for now and perhaps Lee or Lewis later.

Kepler is more complicated, but hear me out. I’d consider moving Lewis and/or Kirilloff to the OF if I wasn’t projecting that some combo of Wallner, Austin, Castro, Gordon, and Larnach, expecting improvements by a couple of them, would give me like production, offensively. Part of the calculus would involve assessments of Miranda and Lee this spring.

If I wasn’t confident about it, Kepler stays. But if I’m confident, I’m salivating to pick up prospect packages for each of them that, in our projections, add up to future production that surpasses what those players gave the franchise. If I get a talent premium due to how far the prospects are from MLB, I like the deals even more, because I have my replacements for Polanco and Kepler.

I like Lewis to LF & Lee to 3B by start of ‘25 at latest. I would move Polanco ASAP, potentially with another couple guys for an arm……….worst case for prospect to loosen up $10.5M for ‘23 payroll.

Kepler has to get a shot at RF - if he’s reasonable through May/June he should get an extension offer. If he’s OK but there are guys pushing their way up to the Show, he gets moved by the deadline.

[JD-TWINS]

On 1/10/2024 at 10:00 AM, Hawkeye Bean Counter said:

Well of your list I only think Rizzo and Teoscar are comparable with low 2.0 WAR prior year (Keplers was 2.9).  Rizzo got a 2 year $40 million contract (and he was offered the QO)  and Teoscar didn't get the offer and got a 1 for $20 mil contract.  I will not consider Garver due to his significant injury history the last couple of years and his steamer value of 1.6 for next year.  A low 2.0 WAR player is in the borderline category which is exactly where Kepler is at and shown by Rizzo and Teoscar.  

So of those 2 Rizzo was offered and declined and Teoscar wasn't offered and came in right at that QO amount.  A single WAR is worth 10 million right now and I wouldn't be surprised if its pushing 11 million next year.   Teams want wins,  and getting a 2.5 wins above replacement is worth $25 million.  This isn't rocket science.  Analytics value Kepler as a 2.4 WAR player for next year and Teoscar at 1.9.  Teoscars 1 year contract came right in at what his value is worth.   So yes this still comes down to you don't think Kepler is worth his 2.4 WAR for the valuation of around 24-25 million on a single year deal.   Ultimately this is all an eye test and what fans value kepler at and its clear you don't value him on what the stats are telling you.   

I value Max……wanted to lynch him last June & was writing apologies by the end of August. Love his defense! His last 85 games in 2023 were fantastic at the plate!

$$ common sense for the Twins organization has to be part of the equation. History & current press releases are what the budget/payroll is built around, not the Pohlad’s family wealth.

See if Kepler performs at a reasonable level through May &, if so, offer to extend him for a couple years at $15M/year.

If he doesn’t extend, Wallner at a 2023 WAR of 2.2 & 14 HR’s in less than half as many AB’s than Kepler is a reasonable replacement in RF.

Lee comes in to play 3B & Lewis moves to LF coming off a 2023 WAR of 2.4 & 15 HR’s in exactly 50% as many AB’s as Kepler.

Kepler is traded prior to deadline.

[Fatbat]

43 minutes ago, bird said:

If I’m the GM, the QO is not even a remote consideration with regards to either Polanco or Kepler.

My first consideration is whether I project that I can replace them out of surplus assets and get like or better production. In my view, the answer is yes on Polanco, with Julien for now and perhaps Lee or Lewis later.

Kepler is more complicated, but hear me out. I’d consider moving Lewis and/or Kirilloff to the OF if I wasn’t projecting that some combo of Wallner, Austin, Castro, Gordon, and Larnach, expecting improvements by a couple of them, would give me like production, offensively. Part of the calculus would involve assessments of Miranda and Lee this spring.

If I wasn’t confident about it, Kepler stays. But if I’m confident, I’m salivating to pick up prospect packages for each of them that, in our projections, add up to future production that surpasses what those players gave the franchise. If I get a talent premium due to how far the prospects are from MLB, I like the deals even more, because I have my replacements for Polanco and Kepler.

There are alot of people in here that probably don’t like what you posted but from a strictly business perspective and moneyball philosophy, you are spot on. If the young guys can hold their own. Dump the salaries and burn thru the AAA guys and replace them with more A guys. Eventually you have to pick enough top talent to win tho. 

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, JD-TWINS said:

2023 Offensive Teoscar:

625 AB’s - 211 Strikeouts - .258 BA - 26 HR - .305 OBP - 106 OPS+ ………2.1 WAR

2023 Offensive Max:

434 AB’s  - 106 Strikeouts - .260 BA - 24 HR - .332 OBP - 121 OPS+ ………..2.9 WAR

I don’t think either guy is worth $20-$22M/year. The Dodgers are creatively paying $15M this year and an $8.5M retirement bonus through the ‘30’s.

To me, Teoscar is way overrated! Not great D & 211 K’s with 2 more HR than Kepler in nearly 200 more AB’s…….doesn’t seem like a very effective masher when viewed in big picture……….in ‘23 GALLO had 21 HR in 282 AB’s & plays a much better OF than Teoscar. Joey’s worth about $1M per year.

Twins will never offer Max a QO that could be accepted at $20-$22M/year……..Wallner - Rodriguez - etc. will be the more prudent option in RF. IMO, If he’s playing well at the break & team’s OF depth is thin, they may make him an offer to extend………if OF depth is present in July, they’ll trade him to better the team & to get some return.

I think the Teoscar deal was an overpay, but the Dodger's are playing a different financial game than just about anyone else. They're definitely banking on him getting back to his 2020-2022 self when he put up OPS+ of 146, 131, and 128.

[Riverbrian]

6 hours ago, bird said:

If I’m the GM, the QO is not even a remote consideration with regards to either Polanco or Kepler.

My first consideration is whether I project that I can replace them out of surplus assets and get like or better production. In my view, the answer is yes on Polanco, with Julien for now and perhaps Lee or Lewis later.

Kepler is more complicated, but hear me out. I’d consider moving Lewis and/or Kirilloff to the OF if I wasn’t projecting that some combo of Wallner, Austin, Castro, Gordon, and Larnach, expecting improvements by a couple of them, would give me like production, offensively. Part of the calculus would involve assessments of Miranda and Lee this spring.

If I wasn’t confident about it, Kepler stays. But if I’m confident, I’m salivating to pick up prospect packages for each of them that, in our projections, add up to future production that surpasses what those players gave the franchise. If I get a talent premium due to how far the prospects are from MLB, I like the deals even more, because I have my replacements for Polanco and Kepler.

This is a great post so I'm not knocking it... however... a couple of things. 

1. The calculus should NOT involve assessments of anyone in the spring when you have an entire year of data in 2024 yet to come before you have to decide.  

2. In my opinion... the decision to offer a qualify offer to Polanco should probably have more to do with... how do the other 29 teams feel about the player. Not so much with how potential replacements in house are doing. The question of weather he can be replaced internally cheaper is a consideration but not the main one.  

After 2024 concludes and if you feel that any team will offer Polanco a contract valued over 50 million in free agency. You offer him a QO regardless of how Julien and Lee are doing because... you will get the draft pick compensation if he signs with the Pirates on 3 year 51 million dollar deal. 

If Polanco decides to turn down the Pirates and take the QO. OK... not a huge deal regardless of how potential replacements are doing because it's only a one year deal and you still get a good player along with with those replacements who are also doing great.  

 

 

[Fatbat]

11 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

This is a great post so I'm not knocking it... however... a couple of things. 

1. The calculus should NOT involve assessments of anyone in the spring when you have an entire year of data in 2024 yet to come before you have to decide.  

2. In my opinion... the decision to offer a qualify offer to Polanco should probably have more to do with... how do the other 29 teams feel about the player. Not so much with how potential replacements in house are doing. The question of weather he can be replaced internally cheaper is a consideration but not the main one.  

After 2024 concludes and if you feel that any team will offer Polanco a contract valued over 50 million in free agency. You offer him a QO regardless of how Julien and Lee are doing because... you will get the draft pick compensation if he signs with the Pirates on 3 year 51 million dollar deal. 

If Polanco decides to turn down the Pirates and take the QO. OK... not a huge deal regardless of how potential replacements are doing because it's only a one year deal and you still good player along with with those replacements who are also doing great.  

 

 

Polo has a team option for 2025 so no QO for him until November’25. Kepler would be the QO in November’24. 

[Riverbrian]

5 minutes ago, Fatbat said:

Polo has a team option for 2025 so no QO for him until November’25. Kepler would be the QO in November’24. 

That is correct. 

My post was more philosophical than Polanco specific... although... I clearly used Polanco specifically in my philosophy.  

[Hawkeye Bean Counter]

3 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

I think the Teoscar deal was an overpay, but the Dodger's are playing a different financial game than just about anyone else. They're definitely banking on him getting back to his 2020-2022 self when he put up OPS+ of 146, 131, and 128.

There is no overpay,  there is only the market rate, and that was $23.5 million that is worth around $20 million on a 1 year deal.  For a player that was supposed to get a 4 year 60-70 million deal it is fair to both sides.  Higher for a 1 year deal,  but no risk on the downside for future years.   

It shows a solid player that produces around a 2 WAR per a year is worth around $20 million on a 1 year deal 😁. 

[chpettit19]

51 minutes ago, Hawkeye Bean Counter said:

There is no overpay,  there is only the market rate, and that was $23.5 million that is worth around $20 million on a 1 year deal.  For a player that was supposed to get a 4 year 60-70 million deal it is fair to both sides.  Higher for a 1 year deal,  but no risk on the downside for future years.   

It shows a solid player that produces around a 2 WAR per a year is worth around $20 million on a 1 year deal 😁. 

We've exhausted our back and forth on this discussion, sorry. I hope Kepler puts up the magical season you predict for the Twins because he'd be great to have that kind of player in our lineup.

[bird]

17 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

This is a great post so I'm not knocking it... however... a couple of things. 

1. The calculus should NOT involve assessments of anyone in the spring when you have an entire year of data in 2024 yet to come before you have to decide.  

2. In my opinion... the decision to offer a qualify offer to Polanco should probably have more to do with... how do the other 29 teams feel about the player. Not so much with how potential replacements in house are doing. The question of weather he can be replaced internally cheaper is a consideration but not the main one.  

After 2024 concludes and if you feel that any team will offer Polanco a contract valued over 50 million in free agency. You offer him a QO regardless of how Julien and Lee are doing because... you will get the draft pick compensation if he signs with the Pirates on 3 year 51 million dollar deal. 

If Polanco decides to turn down the Pirates and take the QO. OK... not a huge deal regardless of how potential replacements are doing because it's only a one year deal and you still get a good player along with with those replacements who are also doing great.  

 

 

I get your logic.  
1) To clarify, my field guys have been continuously assessing the MLB readiness of players such as Lee, Miranda, Kirilloff, and Austin, four assets who matter in my decision. So I misspoke inferring that I’d rely on a spring training assessment per se.

2. I have tho option regarding which bets I’m willing to take. Your approach, in my view, is taking MORE bets, each with greater uncertainty, relying on the performance of a single player who has exhibited disturbing performance volatility. I want a “bird in the hand” (prospects), and I want more of my bets tied to my people’s ASSESSMENTS, avoiding some of the performance uncertainty. Of course, I’m assuming, perhaps wrongly, that my returns for Polanco and Kepler will be more than satisfactory.

[Riverbrian]

40 minutes ago, bird said:

I get your logic.  
1) To clarify, my field guys have been continuously assessing the MLB readiness of players such as Lee, Miranda, Kirilloff, and Austin, four assets who matter in my decision. So I misspoke inferring that I’d rely on a spring training assessment per se.

2. I have tho option regarding which bets I’m willing to take. Your approach, in my view, is taking MORE bets, each with greater uncertainty, relying on the performance of a single player who has exhibited disturbing performance volatility. I want a “bird in the hand” (prospects), and I want more of my bets tied to my people’s ASSESSMENTS, avoiding some of the performance uncertainty. Of course, I’m assuming, perhaps wrongly, that my returns for Polanco and Kepler will be more than satisfactory.

Yeah but I'd contend that performance volatility can't be avoided... now even if you find a consistent player in regards to performance that can be banked on... health is also volatile. In the case of Polanco, 110, 121, 82, 125, 115, 115 are his OPS+ from the past 6 season. 82 was the covid year. His performance has been pretty stable... his health recently has become unstable. 

Could Polanco be worth a 50 million dollar contract? I'd bet against it but he'd be close if he can stay healthy enough for 500 AB's and just produce his career average offensively.   

Anyway.,. You need to take more bets... you need to diversify that portfolio. 

As far as relying upon your people's assessments. I do rely on them... that is what they are paid to do and they know a lot more than I... but... I'd want my people to know and understand that those assessments are very hard to etch in stone because of that volatility. 

All teams make mistakes in regards to talent assessment so I'm not knocking them.... but those people are the same people who thought Joey Gallo was a good idea. Those same people better be recommending a diversified portfolio. 😉  

 

[Hawkeye Bean Counter]

17 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

We've exhausted our back and forth on this discussion, sorry. I hope Kepler puts up the magical season you predict for the Twins because he'd be great to have that kind of player in our lineup.

The thing is I expect Kepler to have a good season not a magical season.  As I stated to start this thread, I think people greatly underestimate how much teams value a player like Kepler.  Teoscar,  even though has more offensive output is similar to Kepler maybe a step below on a WAR basis.   Look, it all comes down to how he performs,  I just was responding to your statement that Teoscar was an overpay (when the market paid him that) or that Kepler has to have a magical season to consider a QO.  Kepler just needs to continue to play defensively well and perform closer to his 2nd half numbers than his first and I think he is a virtual lock.  That isn't pie in the sky,  even though you and Mike may think that.   When you have a pretty good equivalency in Teoscar, I think its fallacy to say it doesn't compare.   

If not if we think he will sign for 4 for $60 million and he will be closer to a 3 to 4 WAR player every year you do that in a heartbeat.  

[chpettit19]

34 minutes ago, Hawkeye Bean Counter said:

The thing is I expect Kepler to have a good season not a magical season.  As I stated to start this thread, I think people greatly underestimate how much teams value a player like Kepler.  Teoscar,  even though has more offensive output is similar to Kepler maybe a step below on a WAR basis.   Look, it all comes down to how he performs,  I just was responding to your statement that Teoscar was an overpay (when the market paid him that) or that Kepler has to have a magical season to consider a QO.  Kepler just needs to continue to play defensively well and perform closer to his 2nd half numbers than his first and I think he is a virtual lock.  That isn't pie in the sky,  even though you and Mike may think that.   When you have a pretty good equivalency in Teoscar, I think its fallacy to say it doesn't compare.   

If not if we think he will sign for 4 for $60 million and he will be closer to a 3 to 4 WAR player every year you do that in a heartbeat.  

The Twins have been pretty openly shopping Kepler for multiple years and nobody in the league has found him so valuable that they were willing to trade for him. So either the Twins overvalue him or the league doesn't value him. I appreciate the back and forth. I have no problem with you believing Kepler can get a QO. I hope he's worthy even if I doubt it happens. We disagree on how to look at WAR in terms of whether offense or defense drives it and how teams value defense driven WAR on the corners. No big deal. But there's nothing left to discuss on this. We'll see what happens.

[stringer bell]

With all the deferred money, isn’t Teoscar’s contract worth less than the 1-year total payout?

[bird]

3 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

Yeah but I'd contend that performance volatility can't be avoided... now even if you find a consistent player in regards to performance that can be banked on... health is also volatile. In the case of Polanco, 110, 121, 82, 125, 115, 115 are his OPS+ from the past 6 season. 82 was the covid year. His performance has been pretty stable... his health recently has become unstable. 

Could Polanco be worth a 50 million dollar contract? I'd bet against it but he'd be close if he can stay healthy enough for 500 AB's and just produce his career average offensively.   

Anyway.,. You need to take more bets... you need to diversify that portfolio. 

As far as relying upon your people's assessments. I do rely on them... that is what they are paid to do and they know a lot more than I... but... I'd want my people to know and understand that those assessments are very hard to etch in stone because of that volatility. 

All teams make mistakes in regards to talent assessment so I'm not knocking them.... but those people are the same people who thought Joey Gallo was a good idea. Those same people better be recommending a diversified portfolio. 😉  

 

Agreed, they can’t predict production volatility. They assess innate talent and separately, current skill level, and then make an extremely educated guess as to whether that gap can be closed. For the reason you mentioned, I’d peddle Polanco for a”diverse” prospect haul, now, while he can fetch a return. 
I have no clue what they think is Wallner’s or the other diverse list of players I mentioned, but certainly they have an opinion and a level of conviction on each. I would bet they already have confidence in three things about Polanco: that they have his replacement(s), that he’ll bring them a decent return, and that getting his salary off the books gives them, um, financial flexibility.

As for Kepler, it might be wishful thinking on my part that his production can be replaced. As I said, if I’m GM, and I should be 😏, Lewis takes LF, Wallner goes to RF, and the backup spots are a competition among Austin(my pick to stick), Kirilloff (if they believe in Miranda or a move to 1B for Julien), Gordon, Castro, Larnach…who am I missing? Or is this enough diversity to satisfy my pal Riverbrian? Again, if none of this diversities group of options is viewed favorably by my field staff, I hang on to Kepler. But I’m still more interested in a trade haul than a QO draft pick.

[cmoss84]

If I am the Twins FO, I am doing everything in my power to trade Vazquez, Kepler, and Polanco this off-season...for whatever they can get. We have perfectly reasonable replacements for all of them, and that is a lot of money that can go towards an ace or a solid #2. Or we can sign Hader and have an amazing bullpen. Kepler and Polanco may be at their apex value NOW. 

These guys still out there...

Snell/Woodruff/Montgomery/Urias (and Kershaw but I'm sure he signs with LAD or retires)

[tony&rodney]

1 minute ago, cmoss84 said:

We have perfectly reasonable replacements for all of them, and that is a lot of money that can go towards an ace or a solid #2. Or we can sign Hader and have an amazing bullpen. Kepler and Polanco may be at their apex value NOW. 

 

You might be missing the notion that even if all three plus Farmer are traded, the Twins are not signing a free agent to a high dollar contract. It is off the table.

There have been plenty of decent fair offers for Polanco and Kepler. The Twins are trading either or both IF the deal results in a better team this season. The Twins are not rebuilding. Right now Kepler is the best outfielder and Polanco is the second best infielder for the coming season. Falvey does not want a repeat of 2022. 

Any transaction for a starting pitcher is tricky because the players being asked about from the Twins roster are Lewis, Julien, and Lee. The idea of adding Bartolo Colon or another interesting corpse of past success as a MLB pitcher does not meet the bar that the Twins are seeking. We just wait for our surprise.

[cmoss84]

11 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

You might be missing the notion that even if all three plus Farmer are traded, the Twins are not signing a free agent to a high dollar contract. It is off the table.

There have been plenty of decent fair offers for Polanco and Kepler. The Twins are trading either or both IF the deal results in a better team this season. The Twins are not rebuilding. Right now Kepler is the best outfielder and Polanco is the second best infielder for the coming season. Falvey does not want a repeat of 2022. 

Any transaction for a starting pitcher is tricky because the players being asked about from the Twins roster are Lewis, Julien, and Lee. The idea of adding Bartolo Colon or another interesting corpse of past success as a MLB pitcher does not meet the bar that the Twins are seeking. We just wait for our surprise.

Wasn't talking about trading for a SP. Why would a high dollar FA pitcher be off the table if we create money for one? I was talking about allocating those players salaries for a FA top end of the rotation SP (or Hader). Who has been offered for Polanco or Kepler? 

[tony&rodney]

4 minutes ago, cmoss84 said:

Wasn't talking about trading for a SP. I was talking about allocating those players salaries for a FA top end of the rotation SP (or Hader).

Covered in first paragraph. As much as you and I want the Twins to sign a FA, it will not occur this offseason. That has been the source of much frustration among people who comment on TD. As many others have stated, it is what it is.

[cmoss84]

3 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

Covered in first paragraph. As much as you and I want the Twins to sign a FA, it will not occur this offseason. That has been the source of much frustration among people who comment on TD. As many others have stated, it is what it is.

I'm sure it is highly unlikely to sign a big FA...but if we clear up some $, why is it 100% off the table? 

[Riverbrian]

7 minutes ago, bird said:

Agreed, they can’t predict production volatility. They assess innate talent and separately, current skill level, and then make an extremely educated guess as to whether that gap can be closed. For the reason you mentioned, I’d peddle Polanco for a”diverse” prospect haul, now, while he can fetch a return. 
I have no clue what they think is Wallner’s or the other diverse list of players I mentioned, but certainly they have an opinion and a level of conviction on each. I would bet they already have confidence in three things about Polanco: that they have his replacement(s), that he’ll bring them a decent return, and that getting his salary off the books gives them, um, financial flexibility.

As for Kepler, it might be wishful thinking on my part that his production can be replaced. As I said, if I’m GM, and I should be 😏, Lewis takes LF, Wallner goes to RF, and the backup spots are a competition among Austin(my pick to stick), Kirilloff (if they believe in Miranda or a move to 1B for Julien), Gordon, Castro, Larnach…who am I missing? Or is this enough diversity to satisfy my pal Riverbrian? Again, if none of this diversities group of options is viewed favorably by my field staff, I hang on to Kepler. But I’m still more interested in a trade haul than a QO draft pick.

This is morphing into a different discussion than what I replied to but that's ok.

I originally responded to what I thought was a good post by you on Polanco and the qualifying offer. I simply was saying that the decision on Polanco and the qualifying offer is made at the end of the year. How Polanco does in 2024 will provide the information needed to make the QO Decision and I think the possibility of draft pick capital is perhaps the primary reason for if you do or don't regardless of who is coming up from behind him.   

This conversation seems to have switched into the same conversation that is happening on multiple threads. Is what coming up behind him sufficient enough to replace Polanco right now. 

I can understand trading Polanco for budget reasons because every team has a budget... I can even understand trading Polanco for pitching... I disagree but can at least understand it.

But... I'm skeptical of any conversation that involves clearing Polanco out of the way for others who might be what he has been.

Just think about Jose Miranda... those same guys who make the assessments that leads to roster decisions... those same guys felt Jose Miranda was our starting 3B out of spring training last year based upon his performance the year prior. Is Julien another Miranda? I don't know... let's find out but I'd rather find out before you toss Polanco out of the way.  

On Kepler... Well... I'm not allowed to talk about Kepler... It would be hypocritical. I would have released him last June. 

It's up to Kepler to be the Kepler that he is. 

[tony&rodney]

1 minute ago, Riverbrian said:

On Kepler... Well... I'm not allowed to talk about Kepler... It would be hypocritical. I would have released him last June. 

It's up to Kepler to be the Kepler that he is. 

This comment makes me chuckle because you, Brock, and others became a little apoplectic about Max and then he unfairly turned the tables. To be fair, Max in the first half didn't hit, drawing the ire.

Personally, I'm glad we don't have Brent Rooker in RF waiting before the ball stops rolling to pick it up and throw it back in.

Kepler will choose free agency after the World Series ends, no matter what type of season. Polanco will move on as well if he is not traded as part of a larger deal this winter. I will be among those people who miss their professional approach. So it goes.

[nicksaviking]

18 minutes ago, cmoss84 said:

I'm sure it is highly unlikely to sign a big FA...but if we clear up some $, why is it 100% off the table? 

Who are you talking about though? Seems only Montgomery or Snell fit that bill, and I personally have no interest in Snell.

Trading for a pitcher who is still in his prime, then spending the money on a big bat seems like the more productive move.

[cmoss84]

28 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Who are you talking about though? Seems only Montgomery or Snell fit that bill, and I personally have no interest in Snell.

Trading for a pitcher who is still in his prime, then spending the money on a big bat seems like the more productive move.

I'm not big on Snell either. But would love to clear up money for Woodruff/Montgomery/Urias/Hader. Although I am not sure if Urias is still in trouble or if LA is ready to part ways. 

The bats left in FA aren't all that great...