Resolving the Apparent Infield Logjam

[IndianaTwin]

On 4/13/2024 at 1:08 PM, jorgenswest said:

I read that they are going to Castro at SS. I agree with the it. It really makes me wonder how they thought giving Farmer that two year contract was a wise idea at the same time they are cutting 30 million off the budget. I have no confidence that this front office can operate in a tight budget. Adding Farmer, Santana, DeSclafani and Margot this winter needs to work or they must be replaced. Once replaced, the new front office can decide in the manager they want to lead this club.

Meanwhile I started the grieving process on whether this team planned to contend on the day of the Polanco trade. It is time to enjoy these games one at a time and leave the thoughts of a ring for another season.

They didn’t give Farmer a two-year contract while cutting $30 million. Nor did they add him this year. 

[TwinsDr2021]

14 minutes ago, Alex said:

If you think they should have just dumped his salary, then I think it's not hard to make a logical conclusion as to why he was traded.  I think they got more than they could have gotten with just 10.5M, especially when you consider you can't buy prospects.    I agree on Santana, as I mentioned above, but hopefully that turns around.

IMO there were four or five options,

Not pick up Polanco's 10.5 million option and not spend any of the money, use prospects/in house players.

Not pick up Polanco's option, and use that money for players.

Pick up his option (and not pick up Farmers) and save 6ish million.

Pick up his option and Farmers option and be forced to trade one of two and fill his spot in house.

Pick up his option and Farmers option and be forced to trade Polanco and fill his spot with a FA, thus saving no money but getting two prospects and a minor league pitcher.

The Twins choose the last option, and that would have been the last option I choose.

[TwinsDr2021]

7 minutes ago, IndianaTwin said:

They didn’t give Farmer a two-year contract while cutting $30 million. Nor did they add him this year. 

Technically they did add him, because they gave him a 2 year 12.5 million dollar contract, with next year being a mutual option. So really a 1 year 6.3 million (250K buyout), the other option was not offering Arbitration and letting him walk.

[Alex]

3 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

IMO there were four or five options,

Not pick up Polanco's 10.5 million option and not spend any of the money, use prospects/in house players.

Not pick up Polanco's option, and use that money for players.

Pick up his option (and not pick up Farmers) and save 5ish million.

Pick up his option and Farmers option and be forced to trade one of two and fill his spot in house.

Pick up his option and Farmers option and be forced to trade Polanco and fill his spot with a FA, thus saving no money but getting two prospects and a minor league pitcher.

The Twins choose the last option, and that would have been the last option I choose.

(I feel like they essentially did #3) That's fine that you would have done something different, but I think letting a player go for money without getting anything in return is a really tough thing, especially for an organization in the Twins position (especially in the last year of his contract).   Or, even keeping him when you did have a lot of other, cheaper options, is a tough case to make.

I don't disagree on the connection between him and Farmer, but I also put more blame on the front office in reducing payroll in a season they should have at least maintained if not tried to add.

[chpettit19]

21 minutes ago, Alex said:

OPS+ of 105 and 110 are above average players.   They got a lot of at bats because of where the injuries were and their flexibility.  They weren't two of the three or four best hitters on the team, they just got a lot of ABs.    I'm not clear who they should have prioritized over these guys, especially as they were initially the backups and it was the rookies, Lewis, and Jeffers that were better hitters on the team last year.  Solano and Castro were 26/27th players on the roster.  If you don't think getting above average value out of those positions is a win, then I'm not sure what we're talking about here. 

It's early and I don't disagree that the roster construction this year hasn't looked good.  If things stay as they are, the money for Farmer and Santana could clearly have been better spent and Castro should have been a last option. 

I agree that sometimes I wish they would trust prospects more, but I won't re-litigate trades that attempted to (and did) shore up weaknesses that we'd otherwise be complaining about.  In fact, people were posting things like "we should trade Brooks Lee for another starter!" even this year.  The Mahle trade was unfortunate but it's in hindsight.   It was the cost of doing business for starting pitching and it was at a position that the organization still has a lot of depth (just not to the point of being tradeable). 

 

I know they weren't 2 of the three or four best hitters on the team, but they got the 3rd and 4th most PAs. The point is that the 26/27th (they both started in the majors so it'd be the 25th/26th, but that's splitting hairs) guys still get a ton of at bats so purposefully filling those spots with short side bats or guys you don't expect to be much above average is a bad strategy. Even without injuries the Twins love to rest guys and get everyone playing time to "stay fresh." There is no position on the Twins 26- or 40-man rosters that should be marked for a guy they don't expect to play often. They actively attempt to play them all often, and they've built around a core of walking injuries. 

I have no problem with the Arraez trade. The Polanco trade is horrible for the 2024 Twins. Absolutely garbage. Paying Farmer and Santana is a terrible strategy. Kyle Farmer has publicly, on the record, stated that he expected to be non-tendered because of his price tag and was surprised when they offered him that deal. When a player is openly admitting you paid too much for him it's terrible team building. DeSclafani wasn't some throw in on the Polanco deal. They gave him a rotation spot. When you put that in the ever growing list of injured pitchers, and injury prone position players, this team collects in the name of "cheap" talent acquisition and see what it's actually cost it's a highly questionable strategy. When you back up your "cheap" injury filled top line talent with over paid, short side platoon bats, or utterly replaceable league average talent you don't get to then play the "well Solano and Castro weren't supposed to play that much" card. 

Their team building strategy is based on 2 conflicting ideas. Pay less for higher injury risk players (Correa, Buxton) and actively injured pitchers (Paddack, Mahle, DeSclafani) paired with extreme platooning so they can acquire/pay cheaper players to fill short side platoon positions. When you add in the unfortunate fact that Lewis and Kirilloff also can't seem to stay healthy (which they've known for years now) you get a team filled with short side platoon bats and cheap veterans trying to carry the team with everyday at bats for much of the season. And, so far, it hasn't worked at all. 

When you actively plan to use all of your guys frequently it is a bad strategy to prioritize lesser players who you hope only have to play lesser roles.

[jorgenswest]

31 minutes ago, IndianaTwin said:

They didn’t give Farmer a two-year contract while cutting $30 million. Nor did they add him this year. 

True. They have a buyout on the one year. They did commit 6.3 million dollars to him and they had no obligation to put him on the 2024 roster. Their decision about whether to add someone back through arbitration or add someone through free agency is the same. Is that the best use of the resources in the context of a payroll that will be cut 30 million? Market should be considered also. Is there any excess value in the contract so that it is a tradeable asset?

 

[chpettit19]

29 minutes ago, Alex said:

(I feel like they essentially did #3) That's fine that you would have done something different, but I think letting a player go for money without getting anything in return is a really tough thing, especially for an organization in the Twins position (especially in the last year of his contract).   Or, even keeping him when you did have a lot of other, cheaper options, is a tough case to make.

I don't disagree on the connection between him and Farmer, but I also put more blame on the front office in reducing payroll in a season they should have at least maintained if not tried to add.

Isn't the last year of Polanco's contract. He has a team option for next year as well. 

[Jocko87]

1 hour ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

I am not going to say the last FO was excellent or even all that great but shambles, really? This FO walked in with following players Berrios, Gibson, Sano, Buxton, Kepler, Arraez, Garver, Rogers, Pressly (used to get Alcala), Rosario, Dozier, Escobar (used to get Duran), Polanco, a top minor league system with Gordon, AK, Gonsalves, Romero, Jay, Stewart, Mejia, Jorge, Ynoa, Hildenberger, Thorpe, Baddoo, Jax, Wade, Rortvedt, Chargois and more.

I'm not at a shambles either but reading this list of names puts it in context. If that was a top minor league system, that's not a very good hit rate. This front office has been steadily removing any traces of the previous regime, mostly it was required.

[Riverbrian]

11 hours ago, Alex said:

I agree but that’s why I said a lot of the analysis is hindsight.

I was the one who brought this discussion back to the forefront and the reason I did it was to show foresight. 😉

[Riverbrian]

2 hours ago, Alex said:

However, it was easy to see why Polanco was traded when he was 

The only reason this is being dredged up is because of a horrific sequence of injuries that lead to the left side of the infield being decimated and "the depth" performing pretty badly.   No team is going to have solid depth when looking at their starting 3B, SS (especially when they are the two best players on the team), and their top replacement going down and be able to easily cover that depth.  

You stand on your own two feet very well and I appreciate the discussion. 

However when you combine these two statements of yours together.  

"it was easy to see why Polanco was traded"

"No team is going to have solid depth when looking at their starting 3B, SS (especially when they are the two best players on the team), and their top replacement going down and be able to easily cover that depth.   

You are illustrating exactly what Chia Pet and myself and others are saying. 

We were recommending that you don't trade that snow blower for a couple of shovels. 

10 Feet of Snow just dropped in April so we are shoveling now.   

 

 

[IndianaTwin]

1 hour ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Technically they did add him, because they gave him a 2 year 12.5 million dollar contract, with next year being a mutual option. So really a 1 year 6.3 million (250K buyout), the other option was not offering Arbitration and letting him walk.

 

1 hour ago, jorgenswest said:

True. They have a buyout on the one year. They did commit 6.3 million dollars to him and they had no obligation to put him on the 2024 roster. Their decision about whether to add someone back through arbitration or add someone through free agency is the same. Is that the best use of the resources in the context of a payroll that will be cut 30 million? Market should be considered also. Is there any excess value in the contract so that it is a tradeable asset?

 

First -- my apologies. I had forgotten about the potential second year, though in reality, mutual options are rarely used by both. Either the player is lousy and the team doesn't want to pick it up or the player does well and wants to try free agency.

Second --  yes, the Twins didn't have to put him on the roster and could have let him walk. But if you are using that logic, don't you need to add anyone else they tendered contracts to, along with picking up the options on Kepler and Polanco? 

[nicksaviking]

15 hours ago, USAFChief said:

At the risk of hijacking this thread, and further beating a dead horse, this was your post immediately prior to the above:

 

Logjam or no logjam, I'm pretty sure the idea (here, won't speak to ownership) of moving middle infielders wasn't to just dump excess quality players, it was to acquire a Sonny Gray replacement.

 

your post immediately above seems to disagree. 

Polanco was traded for a starter. They tried for one of Seattle's actual good ones, settled for Desclafani. The Polanco trade isnt made without  a starter in return. 

 

 

 

Sure, but he clearly wasn't the main return, nor supposed to replace Sonny Gray.

I just get frustrated with Mussolini also kicked a dog arguments. Clearly the front office messed up with their 5th/6th starter choice, but based on their track record with those kinds of pitchers, that was pretty much a given the moment they made that choice. There are considerably worse sins they committed so this DeSclafani stuff just seems like piling on for the sake of piling on. 

[Linus]

3 hours ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

I am not going to say the last FO was excellent or even all that great but shambles, really? This FO walked in with following players Berrios, Gibson, Sano, Buxton, Kepler, Arraez, Garver, Rogers, Pressly (used to get Alcala), Rosario, Dozier, Escobar (used to get Duran), Polanco, a top minor league system with Gordon, AK, Gonsalves, Romero, Jay, Stewart, Mejia, Jorge, Ynoa, Hildenberger, Thorpe, Baddoo, Jax, Wade, Rortvedt, Chargois and more.

The second year they were here the made the playoffs. Lets be real honest the main contributors to this years team so far are the former front office players, trading former front office players and free agents. Don't get me wrong I do give them credit for trades regardless if it the former FO guys (Arraez, Pressly, Rogers, and such) or their guys (Petty, Steer, etc...)

You can talk about analytics and other things and I will agree with you the last one was far behind in that sort of stuff, but remember this front office job was considered the best opening back then by baseball people because of all the players talent (major and minor)

This. One of the great lies perpetrated on this site is that Falvine started with a bare cupboard. They started with a bunch of good young players and some decent pitching. Trevor May was in the pen as well. 

[bean5302]

I just saw this so I voted for "None of the above." They should just wait for the injuries to take care of the problem... LOL

[Riverbrian]

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

When you back up your "cheap" injury filled top line talent with over paid, short side platoon bats, or utterly replaceable league average talent you don't get to then play the "well Solano and Castro weren't supposed to play that much" card. 

Everyone in the world should be able to see the problem that you are illustrating here... yet so many seem to not see it. 

Farmer and Margot are historically not very good at hitting Right Handed pitchers.

They are on the roster to hit left handers so Kirilloff, Julien and Wallner don't have to hit left handers. 

Once you commit 3 roster spots to three batters whose primarily talent is hitting 25% of the league and not so good at hitting 75% of the league. Once the injuries start and they are going to start... Now you are asking those 3 roster spots to do something that they are historically not good at. This is what we are asking Margot and Farmer to do... right now and this is what we will be asking Margot and Farmer to do... multiple times before the season concludes.  

Commiting 15.3 Million dollars this season to three players who are not very good at hitting right handed hitters in an off-season spent trimming payroll 31 million dollars is really really really hard to justify.    

Polanco at 10.5 is actually functional no matter what happens on the injury front. 

 

[jorgenswest]

1 hour ago, IndianaTwin said:

Second --  yes, the Twins didn't have to put him on the roster and could have let him walk. But if you are using that logic, don't you need to add anyone else they tendered contracts to, along with picking up the options on Kepler and Polanco? 

Absolutely. I think they both passed the test of the second criteria. 

Is there any excess value in the contract so that it is a tradeable asset?

I believe both had excess value and could have been traded this winter making their options worthy of pick up. The front office needed to make good use of those assets whether by trade or retaining.

[TwinsDr2021]

3 hours ago, IndianaTwin said:

Second --  yes, the Twins didn't have to put him on the roster and could have let him walk. But if you are using that logic, don't you need to add anyone else they tendered contracts to, along with picking up the options on Kepler and Polanco? 

💯that is how you come up with a payroll. They could have let both walked and signed Flaherty or Montas for the same money. Instead they cut payroll in certain spots (SP) and kept the payroll the exact same and got Santana, Topa, a hurt starting pitcher and gave Farmer a 400k raise.

If before the season somebody would have said the Twins could let Farmer and Polanco walk (not signed Magot or Santana) and signed Montas or Flaherty, and let Miranda, AK, Wallner, Severino DH and play 1B and outfield and had Lee, Helman or Prato play the role of farmer, and spent the payroll that way, compared to what they did, I would have been happier than and now, Going forward maybe not so much. But remember picking up Polanco and trading him for what they did didn't reduce payroll, because they signed Santana (5.25), picked up 4 million of DeSclafani and 1.25 for Topa (yes they got a couple of prospects). To be transparent coming off of just about any of year besides last year, I wouldn't have had as big of issue with it.

In all reality they really just cut Gray (13.3), Pagan (3.5), Maeda (3.15), Gallo (11) Mahle (7.5) and Solano (2.1) and added a 6 relief pitchers to a division winning team.

[USAFChief]

2 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Sure, but he clearly wasn't the main return, nor supposed to replace Sonny Gray.

Well I obviously disagree. Strongly.

Everybody in the western hemisphere knew the Twins were going to add a starter to replace Gray and Maeda. 

They got one.

They weren't looking to trade for a 33 yr old reliever with one season of success, an A ball outfielder, or a non prospect A ball pitcher. 

They wanted a starter. The fact they blinked and let Seattle pawn off a bad one is WHY we need to see this trade for what it was.

Pretending the Twins front office made a good deal, or didn't trade for a starter as the primary return, is just a pollyanna fairytale.

They blew it. Big time.

 

[nicksaviking]

20 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Well I obviously disagree. Strongly.

Everybody in the western hemisphere knew the Twins were going to add a starter to replace Gray and Maeda. 

They got one.

They weren't looking to trade for a 33 yr old reliever with one season of success, an A ball outfielder, or a non prospect A ball pitcher. 

They wanted a starter. The fact they blinked and let Seattle pawn off a bad one is WHY we need to see this trade for what it was.

Pretending the Twins front office made a good deal, or didn't trade for a starter as the primary return, is just a pollyanna fairytale.

They blew it. Big time.

 

So your theory is that the Twins needed a top of the rotation arm and they said, let's get DeSclafani he's more than capable of replacing Sonny Gray? It was reported right away that he was going to have to battle Varland for the 5th spot. They basically acknowledged that he was Matt Shoemaker.

The Polanco deal was terrible, but not because they got a depth starter as part of a door prize package, it was a terrible deal because it didn't lead to getting a top of the rotation starter. They didn't add prospects to Polanco to get an actual starter, nor use the salary savings to go buy one. That is the issue and they knew it. They didn't have any big press conference like they did with Lopez or Maeda or Paddock. They lost out on a big prize and came crawling home with a swag bag. 

I didn't care then and don't care now which 4M bottom barrel depth starter they put on the roster. It was always going to be someone I disliked, yet inevitable. It didn't make a difference to me if they got DeSclafani in this deal or used the money to sign Aaron Civale or Carlos Carrasco. It was number 2 starter or bust, and they busted. 

[Mike Sixel]

2 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

So your theory is that the Twins needed a top of the rotation arm and they said, let's get DeSclafani he's more than capable of replacing Sonny Gray? It was reported right away that he was going to have to battle Varland for the 5th spot. They basically acknowledged that he was Matt Shoemaker.

The Polanco deal was terrible, but not because they got a depth starter as part of a door prize package, it was a terrible deal because it didn't lead to getting a top of the rotation starter. They didn't add prospects to Polanco to get an actual starter, nor use the salary savings to go buy one. That is the issue and they knew it. They didn't have any big press conference like they did with Lopez or Maeda or Paddock. They lost out on a big prize and came crawling home with a swag bag. 

I didn't care then and don't care now which 4M bottom barrel depth starter they put on the roster. It was always going to be someone I disliked, yet inevitable. It didn't make a difference to me if they got DeSclafani in this deal or used the money to sign Aaron Civale or Carlos Carrasco. It was number 2 starter or bust, and they busted. 

Other than Burnes, was any good starter traded? Would Milwaukee even want Polanco? 

I mean, I would have preferred a different tac, but I'm not sure what really could have been done other than spending money, which this FO (and most that aren't big markets) don't do for SPs at all. 

[USAFChief]

8 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

So your theory is that the Twins needed a top of the rotation arm and they said, let's get DeSclafani he's more than capable of replacing Sonny Gray? It was reported right away that he was going to have to battle Varland for the 5th spot. They basically acknowledged that he was Matt Shoemaker.

The Polanco deal was terrible, but not because they got a depth starter as part of a door prize package, it was a terrible deal because it didn't lead to getting a top of the rotation starter. They didn't add prospects to Polanco to get an actual starter, nor use the salary savings to go buy one. That is the issue and they knew it. They didn't have any big press conference like they did with Lopez or Maeda or Paddock. They lost out on a big prize and came crawling home with a swag bag. 

I didn't care then and don't care now which 4M bottom barrel depth starter they put on the roster. It was always going to be someone I disliked, yet inevitable. It didn't make a difference to me if they got DeSclafani in this deal or used the money to sign Aaron Civale or Carlos Carrasco. It was number 2 starter or bust, and they busted. 

So your theory is the Twins made no move to add a starter this winter?

Nonsense.

They traded Polanco for a starter. Period. The only starter added. The fact he's a ****** one changes nothing. He was slotted for the rotation the moment they agreed to the deal. And he's the one piece of the deal the Twins insisted on getting back: a starter. 

One last time: the Twins DO NOT MAKE THE TRADE if they don't get a starter in return. 

That makes DeSclafani the primary return.

They just got beat, badly, in the trade. They blinked. "Well no, Thad. We can't give you one of THOSE starters. But how about THIS one, and these shiny trinkets?"

[nicksaviking]

Just now, USAFChief said:

So your theory is the Twins made no move to add a starter this winter?

Nonsense.

They traded Polanco for a starter. Period. The only starter added. The fact he's a ****** one changes nothing. He was slotted for the rotation the moment they agreed to the deal. 

They did make a move for the rotation, the back of the rotation. And intentionally. They failed to fix the part that mattered, and that is the problem. We're on the same page, but perhaps not the same language and I apologize for not being more concise, but I can do better:

Twins: Who should our swingman this year?

Me: Swingman?!?! Who cares, pick whatever bum you want for that spot, you need to focus on the top of the rotation.

[Mike Sixel]

4 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

So your theory is the Twins made no move to add a starter this winter?

Nonsense.

They traded Polanco for a starter. Period. The only starter added. The fact he's a ****** one changes nothing. He was slotted for the rotation the moment they agreed to the deal. And he's the one piece of the deal the Twins insisted on getting back: a starter. 

One last time: the Twins DO NOT MAKE THE TRADE if they don't get a starter in return. 

That makes DeSclafani the primary return.

They just got beat, badly, in the trade. They blinked. 

I'll bet good money this isn't the "one last time" you post on this :)

I have no idea what they were thinking, but it wasn't what I was thinking....

[Riverbrian]

12 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

"Well no, Thad. We can't give you one of THOSE starters. But how about THIS one, and these shiny trinkets?"

If I had to guess and guess is all I can do. I would agree with Chief. I think they went to Seattle in search of a starter but couldn't pry one of the good ones loose so they had to settle to say... hey at least we got one.   

The part where I would disagree with Chief is: Once DeSclafini became the starter AVAILABLE for a trade. He was no longer the primary in the deal. 

In other words: A starter was probably the primary catalyst for a trade with Seattle but when it was all said and done. Gonzales became the primary acquisition to complete the trade because the front office knew that a flyer on DeSclafini wasn't enough for Polanco. 

I could be right... I could be wrong or somewhere in between but no matter how it transpired... one thing is for sure. It did us absolutely no good in 2024. 

We lost a primary hitter for a sub prime pitcher in 2024.   

[Squirrel]

7 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

I was the one who brought this discussion back to the forefront and the reason I did it was to show foresight. 😉

No, you did it to say ‘See? I told you so,’ but sugar-coat it how you like 🙂

[Riverbrian]

9 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

No, you did it to say ‘See? I told you so,’ but sugar-coat it how you like 🙂

[ashbury]

11 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I was on record a long time ago that you would say this.

[Riverbrian]

15 hours ago, ashbury said:

I was on record a long time ago that you would say this.

Cause it was a sure thing... 

It's April 15th. 

[wabene]

On 4/15/2024 at 6:53 AM, TwinsDr2021 said:

I am not going to say the last FO was excellent or even all that great but shambles, really? This FO walked in with following players Berrios, Gibson, Sano, Buxton, Kepler, Arraez, Garver, Rogers, Pressly (used to get Alcala), Rosario, Dozier, Escobar (used to get Duran), Polanco, a top minor league system with Gordon, AK, Gonsalves, Romero, Jay, Stewart, Mejia, Jorge, Ynoa, Hildenberger, Thorpe, Baddoo, Jax, Wade, Rortvedt, Chargois and more.

The second year they were here the made the playoffs. Lets be real honest the main contributors to this years team so far are the former front office players, trading former front office players and free agents. Don't get me wrong I do give them credit for trades regardless if it the former FO guys (Arraez, Pressly, Rogers, and such) or their guys (Petty, Steer, etc...)

You can talk about analytics and other things and I will agree with you the last one was far behind in that sort of stuff, but remember this front office job was considered the best opening back then by baseball people because of all the players talent (major and minor)

Part of the reason this job may have been considered plum was the Pohlad's track record of not being reactionary in their hiring and firing. Their style might be called glacial, lol. 

Take a hard look at your list of players. Looks like you've got half of an ok team. Befitting of an organization that lost 90+ games 5 out of 6 years. Falvey's regime has made strides organization wide, in every department. I'd wager his team has gotten more out of the same players. Especially pitching development. Their record bears this out. 

[wabene]

Did anyone think moving Polo would bring back a front line starter? DeSclafani was not the reason for this trade. He was 4m gamble on providing excess starter value. Their thinking was if he was healthy he had proven to be good. If not, Louie gets his chance. Guess what? That's exactly what happened.