TRADE: Twins Send Jorge Polanco to Mariners in Five-Player Deal

[Mike Sixel]

3 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

I'm not bummed about moving Polanco, one more injury and he's got NO value. I am bummed about not being able to get one of Seattle's young pitchers, though if Seattle was refusing to move them, there's not much to do about it.

As far as the money saved goes though, the last of the three free agents I wanted, Justin Turner, just signed. So at this point I couldn't care less what payroll is. I'd rather go with the roster we have than hand out dumb contracts to what's left on the market.

They might, might, deal for a player that makes money (or at the deadline).

Things I think are true:

The Twins are less good now for 2024 than they were.
The bullpen is better.
The SP is deeper, but I'm not a fan of the new guy and have doubts.
It sucks for Varland if he's in AAA, as he's losing a ton of money will in AAA. 
The farm is deeper.
They aren't done trading.

Things I like:
I like the new RP
I like the new prospects, and think the pitcher could move quickly if they make him a RP full time.
I like the new OF.....

Things I think will happen:
Twins will sign an ok player.
Twins will trade for a good player.

It's possible for most of the thoughts on this thread to be true at the same time.

Things I'm certain of:
Seattle was not dealing any of their good ML SP. No way.

[chpettit19]

2 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

So, in other words, let's ignore the facts of how teams have been successful because it does not fit your opinion of how to be successful.  What you are telling me is that you are not interested in the hard evidence for what has worked for every 90 win team in the bottom half of revenue in the last 25 years.  After listening to people repeatedly take your position.  I wanted to know if this position held by so many would align with history / actual results.  So, I took the time to gather the data to determine how successful teams in the bottom half of revenue acquired the best players on their rosters over the past 20 years.  I have posted that factual information more than once but as you said here is no convincing you or anyone else with the facts when you are unwilling to accept hard evidence.  I don't know if that should be labeled fanatical but it's certainly not an informed position.

Your definition of "successful" and mine are different. When you can show me those teams winning World Series with this brilliant plan I'll listen. You have different goals for the Twins than I do. The facts are that your 3 precious teams you want the Twins to emulate have won a combined 0 World Series titles in the past 20 years. In fact they've won a combined 0 World Series since 1989. The Guardians have been investing in future assets while developing pitching at a crazy clip and are now an afterthought in the AL Central's historically bad division. The A's are the most embarrassing franchise in professional sports. And the Rays have made noise in the playoffs twice in their entire 25 year existence. My position is plenty informed, it just has different goals than yours. I'm sorry if you don't like that. 

[Mike Sixel]

2 hours ago, USAFChief said:

1. Where are the Twins going to be able to spend that money in June or July if (when) Desclafiani sucks?

2. The Twins didn't actually net an extra $8M. They got $8M to put towards Desclafani's $12M salary.

3. Both SF and Seattle were so happy to be rid of Desclafani this winter they were willing to pay part of his salary to NOT pitch for them. That should tell you what those two organizations think of him.

 

1, A trade for a guy if they are in contention. Is this debatable?

2. Ya, no. They also got rid of Polanco's salary. They netted 5-8 million (I've seen different numbers).

3. Yup. And I doubt the Twins love him either. He was there to even out the money so the Twins got more prospect capital.

[nicksaviking]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

They give them whatever it takes philosophy in fanatical.  The proof is very clear if you would be willing to look at how TBR and the Guardians or As have outperformed bottom half revenue teams over the past 25 years.  This has become common practice for the best teams and FO people who want to keep their job manage assets based on total return as opposed to give whatever it takes to be better right now.  Anyone can push chips in to be better short term.  That requires very little management acumen.

Fun fact, these are three of the only 11 teams with longer World Series droughts than the Twins. 

For all the accolades the Rays have gotten, they're now a one-and-done playoff team regularly. These organizations can build sustained respectable teams, but this method of not sacrificing any future and going that extra mile now is almost certainly what keeps them from winning a championship. There was that one non-major market outlier team which did the opposite approach, the Royals. They went counter-intuitive with contending and it paid off for them.

And yes, I'll take a half decade of struggles for one World Series win, that's all I am interested in seeing from the Twins. 

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Fun fact, these are three of the only 11 teams with longer World Series droughts than the Twins. 

For all the accolades the Rays have gotten, they're now a one-and-done playoff team regularly. These organizations can build sustained respectable teams, but this method of not sacrificing any future and going that extra mile now is almost certainly what keeps them from winning a championship. There was that one non-major market outlier team which did the opposite approach, the Royals. They went counter-intuitive with contending and it paid off for them.

And yes, I'll take a half decade of struggles for one World Series win, that's all I am interested in seeing from the Twins. 

You have a point.  There is no doubt that the best chances of winning the WS would be trade every good prospect we have.  Push all the chips in and the odds of winning the WS no doubt goes up if you have the core in place where these additions push the team over the top.  if we were lucky, we might get to close to level of Atlanta and LA but I doubt it.  The odds of being really horrible for a very long time are considerably higher than winning the WS with this approach.

Where KC is concerned.   Trading for established players was a very small part of building that championship team.  Shields was gone by the time they won the WS.  The only piece that KC that impacted their WS win was Wade Davis and that was a very fortunate side effect of the Shields trade.   By far more important trade was when they traded away a very good established player (Greinke) for prospects, Cain and Escobar.  That team was good because they collected very high draft picks for several years as a result of absolutely sucking. So, to say they won the WS because they traded away top prospects is a real stretch.

I watch 120 games/year.  The choice between increasing the odds of winning a World Series and watching a good team vs a horrible team for a decade or two is not even remotely close for me.  Fans are going to differ on this choice and that's fine, but I don't want to watch a crappy team year after year.

[ashbury]

37 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Fun fact, these are three of the only 11 teams with longer World Series droughts than the Twins.

Worse, they are in the bottom 8 of MLB attendance.  They make the sport weaker.

They serve up the dog food, but the dogs aren't eating it.

[Fatbat]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

If he gets DFA'd nobody is taking on his money. He still gets paid if he gets DFA'd it's just a matter of if he gets claimed and someone else pays what's left. The Twins netted $5.25 million in payroll space on this deal, not 8.

I know that its 5.25M. If he is gone at some point, that # goes up. 
there is also no $750k buyout of polo if he tanks and gets sent by Seattle and not us. If Seattle keeps him, that is irrelevant but his 12M salary for ‘25 still wont be paid by us. Thats an added benefit that is a guaranteed savings for the future. 

[chpettit19]

2 minutes ago, Fatbat said:

I know that its 5.25M. If he is gone at some point, that # goes up. 
there is also no $750k buyout of polo if he tanks and gets sent by Seattle and not us. If Seattle keeps him, that is irrelevant but his 12M salary for ‘25 still wont be paid by us. Thats an added benefit that is a guaranteed savings for the future. 

How does it go up? MLB deals are guaranteed. Only way the Twins save anymore money on him is if some other team claims him, or trades for him, so they pay it. I don't see him failing here and having another team agree to pay him. I don't see how you're getting to anymore than the 5.25 outside of believing some other team would want to pay DeSclafani.

[Fatbat]

4 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

How does it go up? MLB deals are guaranteed. Only way the Twins save anymore money on him is if some other team claims him, or trades for him, so they pay it. I don't see him failing here and having another team agree to pay him. I don't see how you're getting to anymore than the 5.25 outside of believing some other team would want to pay DeSclafani.

You don’t see it but stated a way that it could happen. Strange.  
a career ending injury settlement is also possible but about as unlikely as him having a lights out season and being worth every penny. Yet here we are…

[RpR]

25 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I watch 120 games/year.  The choice between increasing the odds of winning a World Series and watching a good team vs a horrible team for a decade or two is not even remotely close for me.  Fans are going to differ on this choice and that's fine, but I don't want to watch a crappy team year after year.

Right now the Twins Front Office are not heading towards a crappy team year-after-year, just a mediocre one.

[chpettit19]

Just now, Fatbat said:

You don’t see it but stated a way that it could happen. Strange.  
a career ending injury settlement is also possible but about as unlikely as him having a lights out season and being worth every penny. Yet here we are…

My point is I don't see any team being likely to claim him so I don't think it's a realistic way. If he flops again here it's far more likely nobody claims him and he signs as a free agent. Is it technically possible to save another slightly more in season (we'd already have paid down part of his deal by then so it's not all straight forward anyways)? Sure. Is it likely or some actual positive we should take from this? I'd say no. Just feels like a stretch here.

[DJL44]

24 minutes ago, RpR said:

Right now the Twins Front Office are not heading towards a crappy team year-after-year, just a mediocre one.

Yes, but they're doing it cheaply which is the most important thing for ownership.

[USAFChief]

44 minutes ago, Fatbat said:

I know that its 5.25M. If he is gone at some point, that # goes up. 
there is also no $750k buyout of polo if he tanks and gets sent by Seattle and not us. If Seattle keeps him, that is irrelevant but his 12M salary for ‘25 still wont be paid by us. Thats an added benefit that is a guaranteed savings for the future. 

MLB contracts are guaranteed. 

Desclafani is getting $12m for the 2024 season unless he chooses not to show up. Even if he's released by the Twins prior to opening day.

 

Pro tip: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging 

 

[Fatbat]

23 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

My point is I don't see any team being likely to claim him so I don't think it's a realistic way. If he flops again here it's far more likely nobody claims him and he signs as a free agent. Is it technically possible to save another slightly more in season (we'd already have paid down part of his deal by then so it's not all straight forward anyways)? Sure. Is it likely or some actual positive we should take from this? I'd say no. Just feels like a stretch here.

I agree. I just have issues with the way some justifications are stated and the way things are linked.  For instance the whole 5.25M net.  That includes paying the 40th guy on the roster. Why include that when we would have had to pay a 40th guy anyhow.  Shouldn't that be separate? There is so many future tentacles to this deal but the pundits want to reach for a conclusion.

[tony&rodney]

The reality is that the coming season will play out in ways that are often unpredictable.

Some things seem true though, but also can change. The Twins are not expected to win as many games this year as they were predicted to win before the trade. The Mariners win total predictions went up. Fangraphs, FWIW.

To sum up the parts, a lottery ticket pitcher with control issues may possibly see time in MLB some day as a relief pitcher. This is Darren Bowen. A prospect who may have some pop in his bat and made decent contact in low A but really struggled in A+ ball, has a big arm but can't run and struggles to field but made the back half of a top 100 list. This is Gabriel Gonzalez. A middle relief pitcher who had a good season as a 32 year old rookie in 2023 after years of tough injuries. This is Justin Topa. A pitcher with a limited ceiling who has fallen on hard times after decent seasons in 2019 and 2021, who was traded twice this winter and is seen as below Simeon Woods Richardson as a starting pitcher by The Athletic's Eno Sarris. This is Anthony DeSclafani. Each can guess on all.

Twins Daily is lauding this trade. Seattle blogs are joyous and wondering how Dipoto pulls these trades off, and BTV is once again going WTF.

We will have our answer by October unless this was simply a salary dump or an attempt to field a better team in the future while giving up on this year's team which some have suggested. 

Personally I have no idea what Falvey is up to. I'm just a baseball fan and routinely follow/watch way too much baseball for my own good. As far as this trade goes, what is done is done. So it goes.

[Fatbat]

14 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

MLB contracts are guaranteed. 

Desclafani is getting $12m for the 2024 season unless he chooses not to show up. Even if he's released by the Twins prior to opening day.

 

Pro tip: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging 

 

I know that. You didn’t understand my point.  There are many ways to talk about the dollars and the accounting of them.  You should start with -10.5M for polo in ‘24, -750k possible buy out and -12M that we wont be paying polo in ‘25.  

[tony&rodney]

3 hours ago, Markdumont25 said:

I agree the overall trade makes our team immediately worse, but I think that's a shortsighted view. For starters, the added prospect depth could potentially be used to make our team better this year. But more importantly, I think this is a good balance of combining what's best for this year with what's going to be best for the next few years with our new young core. 

To me Polanco is not a #2 or #3 hitter in this lineup. All signs are pointing to better health for Correa and (admittedly, much less reliably) Buxton this year. Those two playing closer to their full potential combined with Royce, Julien and a potentially still rejuvenated Max Kepler and I don't even see Polanco in the top half of the lineup. Also, as I stated before Polanco only played 80 games last year and 100 the year before. He hasn't been reliably on the field recently and with Julien and Lee waiting in the wings I don't think this is as big a loss as people are making it out to be. The reality is he's a veteran with a pricier contract and a recent injury history on crowded roster of young, upcoming players. And while depth is good, but we can only carry so many people on the roster. We got a top 100 prospect for him with some added bullpen and rotation depth. Again, though it's hard to say goodbye I think this was a reasonable move to make.

Ok, I know you are seeing things differently than I do, which is fine and I respect that. I guess I disagree with some of the views of this trade. When you say Polanco is not a top of the lineup hitter, this seems to be a disagreement with the managers. Why would guys like Molitor, Baldelli, and Seattle's manager all put Polanco in the top of their lineup if he didn't belong there?

You also state that the number of games missed by Polanco. He was injured. Royce Lewis missed more games and we are not suggesting his career is past. The best collection of players make for the best teams. I was one to suggest that the Twins needed to add players better than what they already have now, not take away from their strengths to create positions for Larnach, Gordon, etc. I have nothing against Larnach, Gordon or others but feel Polanco is a better player for any team seeking to win more games. Seattle agrees. The money should have been irrelevant but perhaps the Twins need to be below $120 million for payroll. This is the only justification for this trade that makes any sense at all.

[KirbyDome89]

1 hour ago, Fatbat said:

You should start with -10.5M for polo in ‘24, -750k possible buy out and -12M that we wont be paying polo in ‘25.  

2025 is a club option. The Twins aren't on the hook for $12M, so that "savings," doesn't exist. 

[Squirrel]

5 hours ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

That’s besides the point. I think gonzalez was a throw in. 

I actually think DaSclafani was the throw in

[Markdumont25]

1 hour ago, tony&rodney said:

 Why would guys like Molitor, Baldelli, and Seattle's manager all put Polanco in the top of their lineup if he didn't belong there?

You also state that the number of games missed by Polanco. He was injured. Royce Lewis missed more games and we are not suggesting his career is past. 

His career was at a different place when Molitor was managing and the composition of the lineup will be different from the previous years of Baldelli (we didn't have Royce and Julien with another top 20 middle infield prospect anticipated to debut this year). We don't know where the Seattle manager will hit him. There's no argument he's been a good player for us but I guess I don't place as much weight on his past performance when he was younger and the overall team composition was much different. I just don't see him being a key piece in a world series run for us in 2024. Offensively, the younger wave is going to have to mature and carry the day if that's going to happen.

Similarly, Royce's career and Polancos are at very different stages and I don't think it's appropriate to compare injury histories at their respective stages.

All that being said, I do see where you're coming from and reasonable minds can disagree! And, like I said, I do agree that it makes us immediately worse but I'm looking at it as one strategic move in what is hopefully a series of moves that ultimately do make us better overall.

[Fatbat]

49 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

2025 is a club option. The Twins aren't on the hook for $12M, so that "savings," doesn't exist. 

Obviously but its an either/or. Pay 750k or 12M. Now its neither.  If polo would not have been traded, one of those would have been paid.  When the FO looks at the expected ‘25 budget, neither of those scenarios are there but are likely replaced by Lee’s rookie contract expense. Which was my original point. Where do you stop at the budget reallocation. How far do you travel down that road until you say the trade doesn’t have an effect on that cost. 

[cmoss84]

https://baseball.realgm.com/wiretap/57476/Twins-Plan-To-Spend-Money-Saved-In-Jorge-Polanco-Trade

[Fatbat]

@cmoss84 and Falvey previously said the payroll would settle into the 125 to 140ish range. That would mean 12-30M more could be added in 2024 payroll.  This trade is only a conduit to other moves that will improve the ‘24 roster. 

[KirbyDome89]

53 minutes ago, Fatbat said:

Obviously but its an either/or. Pay 750k or 12M. Now its neither.  If polo would not have been traded, one of those would have been paid.  When the FO looks at the expected ‘25 budget, neither of those scenarios are there but are likely replaced by Lee’s rookie contract expense. Which was my original point. Where do you stop at the budget reallocation. How far do you travel down that road until you say the trade doesn’t have an effect on that cost. 

750K is literally nothing. They'll throw that at some retread to get knocked around in ST and sit in the minors. There are no savings beyond this year. None. 

[Hawkeye Bean Counter]

5 hours ago, RpR said:

Right now the Twins Front Office are not heading towards a crappy team year-after-year, just a mediocre one.

I would disagree,  the farm is exponentially better,  along with a much better product on the MLB team.  We are in a stretch of likely continued success similar to the 2001 to 2010 era.  

Just remember now,  after the season to look at the pitching pipeline.  It will likely be the best we have had in a very long time.   

[Fatbat]

24 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

750K is literally nothing. They'll throw that at some retread to get knocked around in ST and sit in the minors. There are no savings beyond this year. None. 

Thats one way to look at it and I don’t disagree with you. What do say to someone that reflects back on the trade in a year from now and either wishes we had polo back for 12M or is happy the twins moved onto a guy making league minimum at DH/2B? Should the absence of that $12M option be spent? Im firmly in the camp of spending as much as they need to to win a WS. Trades like this are just fun to talk about. Doesn't really move the needle for me tho. Get me an actual front line starter. We got plenty of farm talent to fill position player holes. 

[tony&rodney]

39 minutes ago, Fatbat said:

Get me an actual front line starter.

Do you believe the Twins will get a front line starter?

[Fatbat]

28 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

Do you believe the Twins will get a front line starter?

Somehow by the trade deadline, yes. I believe that the FO knows they need a co ace to even have a chance at winning a 7 game series. Imagine that we go up 2-0 in a series knowing we got Ober and Ryan and then back to Pablo and Ace2.  and all the potential stoppers in the pen. Pitching wins the WS. Every time. 

[tony&rodney]

Just now, Fatbat said:

Somehow by the trade deadline, yes. I believe that the FO knows they need a co ace to even have a chance at winning a 7 game series. Imagine that we go up 2-0 in a series knowing we got Ober and Ryan and then back to Pablo and Ace2.  and all the potential stoppers in the pen. Pitching wins the WS. Every time. 

Ok. I like your optimism. Looking around baseball I'm not seeing anyone of Ace #2 material that the Twins could acquire. But time will tell.

[Kirby Killebrew]

On 1/29/2024 at 8:34 PM, DocBauer said:

Knee jerk reaction?

I don't like it. I can see Topa as a solid 6th inning guy for the pen. Gonzalez certainly seems/sounds like a very solid young RH bat for the OF in a couple of years. Solid numbers in his brief career so far! But DeSclafani hasn't been good since the Giants got him in 2021. He'll turn 34yo shortly after the season starts. Can he turn it back around at this stage in his career?

How about Polanco straight up for a better young arm and Seattle can keep everyone else and their $???? I would have liked that deal better. Or Polanco and a solid top 20 prospect for a slightly better arm than pitcher X in a 1 for 1 deal?

This only makes sense to me if Gonzalez is moved in a second deal, OR, helps replace someone else from the Twins system that is included in such a deal for a different, better arm.

Otherwise, we gave Polanco to them for a maybe #5 SP, a middle man for the pen, and a nice 20yo prospect who's got to be 2yrs away.

Nope...don't like this at all!

Good analysis, Doc.  We lose this trade in the short run.  But, we won't know if we won/lost this trade for another five years, assuming we keep Gonzalez that long.