Why You Shouldn't Lump Anthony DeSclafani In With Other Injured Twins Pitching Acquisitions

[nicksaviking]

21 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

This is true only if the twins were willing to devote a roster to a player who is primarily a DH.  Most teams don't want to devote a spot to a DH and if the twins were to do so Martinez made more sense. 

Who does he replace in the field?  Julien is the superior and cheaper player at 2B against RHP.  Farmer is the superior player a 2B against LHP.   Lewis the much better player at 3B.  Kirilloff is the equivalent player at 1B against RHP and much cheaper.  Santana is the superior player at 1B against LHP.  So, when is he the preferred starter?

I'm not upset about trading Polanco. However, that trade would have made way more sense if the Twins had used his money to get a better bat to plug into the lineup every day. But they didn't, they signed Carlos Santana and traded for Manuel Margot who insanely they are OK paying 8M dollars. It was a lateral moves at best. As it is (particularly with Margot of all people the RH DH), I'd rather have just kept Polanco and maybe tried trading him again at the trade deadline.

I think the front office was too focused on getting something for Polanco AND getting rid of his salary and failed to see the urgency and big picture of EITHER getting a good player for Polanco OR getting rid of his salary. It took too long for them to understand they weren't getting the good player, and by the time they finally settled for the Mariners offer, the good free agents they could have used the money on signed elsewhere. With nobody good left to spend their scratch off winnings on, they said "Screw it, we need to spend the rest of this somewhere."

Ownership handcuffed the front office this year, but the front office either panicked or tried to get too cute with it. It's hard to see this as anything other than a failure. I'm not going to crucify them for it, they've done better in past years and this isn't their epitaph, but it still was a chain reaction of poor choices and I think it's OK for the fans to acknowledge that.

[Riverbrian]

8 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

This is true only if the twins were willing to devote a roster to a player who is primarily a DH.  Most teams don't want to devote a spot to a DH and if the twins were to do so Martinez made more sense. 

Who does he replace in the field?  Julien is the superior and cheaper player at 2B against RHP.  Farmer is the superior player a 2B against LHP.   Lewis the much better player at 3B.  Kirilloff is the equivalent player at 1B against RHP and much cheaper.  Santana is the superior player at 1B against LHP.  So, when is he the preferred starter?

Royce Lewis is out for two months after two AB's and you still want to make this same point? 

Like Chief pointed out... Manuel Margot was our opening day DH and you still want to make this same point? Alex Kirilloff was in LF by game two and you still want to make this point?  

Julien still isn't in the lineup against left handers. Santana leads the team in plate appearances. Willie Castro is our everyday 3B and you still want to make this point? 

It's just game three. 

Your paper lineup doesn't have any staying power. You are standing in the middle of a lineup already in flux around you. 

But... Nevermind all of that. Polanco would not be a bench player.  

 

[weitz41]

122 Comments. Just too many to catch up.

IMO...The nit picking seems excessive. Let me explain before you hit reply/respond...

1st and foremost the FO was instructed to reduce payroll by what appears to be 30%. It was made public, that I would say was a mistake.

So now the FO is in a position where they need to part ways with players, and everyone knows it...On top of that the most obvious team for Polanco was IMO and always was the Mariners. They're cutting payroll as well. IDK, maybe I missed something here? How from that position do you get fair value? It's seems like a recipe for a trade that neither team is thrilled with. But necessary for both teams. Twins due to payroll and mariners due to payroll and to hopefully solve their black hole at second they've had for years.

Once the shoe dropped, in public, that payroll was going down substantially. Winning trades was probably not going to happen.

We get DeScalfani (and his salary) in order to get a borderline top 100 prospect, BP help and salary relief. That by itself seems like a reasonable return considering the circumstances.

Santana, He has been traded for the last 2 season at the trade deadline. Should he be your starting 1B probably not. But he has been a player for years now other teams have wanted on their team in the fall. That should say something.

One last thing. Margot's salary is being mostly paid for by other teams. If I remember right the Twins are paying 4 mil of 10mil? For a veteran, 4th OF/platoon player. That's probably about market value. 

I know that's a lot. but hey I've been quiet this offseason...

 

Add one more thing...Thanks a lot mother nature for the 6-12 inch's of snow between now and tomorrow morning...Anyone want a ticket for tomorrow's game? 3rd base line...

 

[Battle ur tail off]

Just no way to defend them. We let go gold(Gray, Maeda, Polanco) and brought back lead(bunch of no name turds that aren't going to help much if at all this year)...

[Linus]

3 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

Polanco would not have been a bench player!!! 

Polonco hit 2nd in the order for us during the playoffs last year. He is hitting third in the lineup for the Mariners thus far this year. 

Yea the whole “ we didn’t have a spot for him” argument is really tired. He would be one of our best hitters. 

[rv78]

9 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Your disagreement with the FO stems from your complete disregard for the future.  The primary responsibility of any leader responsible for the success of an organization is sustained success.  The fact that you don't care about the future is the central problem.  

You don't throw away the present for a "chance" in the future. Which is what they did. Twins fans need to stay away from Target Field this year and show them they don't like what they have done.

[Jocko87]

8 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

That "relevant part at 1:28" was him listing off all the guys they already had and saying they were happy with them while giving absolutely no impression that they were looking for additional starting pitching. Which isn't "quite the opposite" of what I said, but in fact is exactly what I said. They had no intention of bringing in any more starting pitching after they brought in DeSclafani. I hope your "if it's not a direct quote you're flat out wrong" condescension felt good.

This article doesn't quote him, but mentions that Falvey mentioned turning to the position player side after the trade, like outfield depth and first base. Which is, again, exactly what I said.

Here's another one that actually quotes him about the outfield group and adding flexibility while, clearly unreliable source I shouldn't use to base my comments on, Do-Hyoung Park also says the Twins are turning their attention to the position player side after acquiring DeSclafani..

Here's one from The Athletic about the trade where he's quoted as them expecting to use the money saved to address other ways to improve the club, and mentioning DeSclafani as a starter (news flash, they already had 4 starters in the rotation so DeSclafani was the 5th and final one). Maybe Dan Hayes and Ken Rosenthal shouldn't be trusted for me to base my statements on either.

Dang it, now I have to stop trusting Gleeman as well, because here's an article from him where he quotes Falvey saying "I think our focus might turn more to the position player route" when talking about getting DeSclafani in the return. 

Wow, Dan Hayes really doubling down on his untrustworthiness by writing another article again quoting Falvey as saying they're turning their attention to the position player side. Same quote as Gleeman so they're probably in cahoots on this misleading media mess. This article is all about how they can spend the savings from the Polanco deal. The only talk about adding another pitcher is a reference to the trades for frontline starters that didn't happen while Hayes also states "for now, it seems as if those overtures are on the back burner." 

I have a meeting to get to so I'm going to stop at 5 articles supporting my statements that DeSclafani was their rotation move and they weren't looking for other starters after they got him.

I'm sorry I made such a stretch as to take the reporting from 4 highly trusted baseball and Twins reporters to be accurate and took the liberty to read through Falvey's masterful "media deflection" when he used the phrase "I think" instead of flat out saying it. I hope your condescension felt good. You're right, though. Technically Falvey didn't come right out and say that DeSclafani was their only rotation move and they weren't going to look for any other starters. He got real masterful and snuck in that "I think" to throw everyone off their scent. 

I hope 5 sources was enough to quench your thirst. And I hope your "well technically" speech felt good. That "I think" is really going to give me nightmares on how I could be so brash as to take his statement as truth. I feel just terrible for my "disingenuous interpretation" because he dropped an "I think" in there.

1:28 not 1:48 which is what you are referring too.  I gave a specific time stamp to call attention to specific statement and you blow right through it to hear something not related to anything.   

Then, as if in an overt bid to make my point, you start with an article that doesn't even quote him but indicates he's working on something else right now.  The references don't get any closer after that.  Certainty nothing that supports the malicious malquotes I called out, not even in the same ballpark. And yes, I had already read all those prior to posting originally and was well aware of the same quote used in four separate articles.

If you could address the specific statement by Falvey between 1:28 and 1:45 of the link, I'd appreciate it.  It gets right to the heart of the discussion and deserves to be viewed next to your statements. 

I figured out how to do a transcript from a video, yay tech me, so here it is.  

Q: Do you have enough starting pitching depth?

Falvey: There's no such thing. I think it's a, it's a misnomer to think that you have enough starting pitching at any moment in time, because the second you think you do maybe there's an injury or setback or something else that happened. So we focus on just building out as much as we can, you're going to need some guys from the minor leagues to step up for you. There's young kids, like David Festa, like Simeon Woods Richardson guys that are in AAA that are going to need to step up and help. 

My opinion is that man is never not looking for pitching.  He's looking for pitching in his Christmas stocking, under the bed, Seattle, you name it.  But that's one observers opinion only. 

[USAFChief]

1 hour ago, Jocko87 said:

1:28 not 1:48 which is what you are referring too.  I gave a specific time stamp to call attention to specific statement and you blow right through it to hear something not related to anything.   

Then, as if in an overt bid to make my point, you start with an article that doesn't even quote him but indicates he's working on something else right now.  The references don't get any closer after that.  Certainty nothing that supports the malicious malquotes I called out, not even in the same ballpark. And yes, I had already read all those prior to posting originally and was well aware of the same quote used in four separate articles.

If you could address the specific statement by Falvey between 1:28 and 1:45 of the link, I'd appreciate it.  It gets right to the heart of the discussion and deserves to be viewed next to your statements. 

I figured out how to do a transcript from a video, yay tech me, so here it is.  

Q: Do you have enough starting pitching depth?

Falvey: There's no such thing. I think it's a, it's a misnomer to think that you have enough starting pitching at any moment in time, because the second you think you do maybe there's an injury or setback or something else that happened. So we focus on just building out as much as we can, you're going to need some guys from the minor leagues to step up for you. There's young kids, like David Festa, like Simeon Woods Richardson guys that are in AAA that are going to need to step up and help. 

My opinion is that man is never not looking for pitching.  He's looking for pitching in his Christmas stocking, under the bed, Seattle, you name it.  But that's one observers opinion only. 

Did they add any more starting pitching?

 

 

 

 

...

 

...

 

 

 

[Major League Ready]

12 hours ago, rv78 said:

You don't throw away the present for a "chance" in the future. Which is what they did. Twins fans need to stay away from Target Field this year and show them they don't like what they have done.

I heard/read 8-10 assessments of the trades from various reporters and former GMs.  Not one of them indicated this jeopardized the present and the generally consensus was the either this was a very good trade for the twins.  There were also at least 4 or 5 articles on the most likely player to be traded by each team.  All of those articles listed Polanco because of the Twins INF depth.  Are every single one of these people incompetent?   Show us a link where someone who gets paid to render an opinion that agrees with you.   I expect another uninformed quip that sounds smart instead of backing up your statement.

Trading for prospects is by far the most effective way to build a winner.  A couple years ago after seeing many similar statements to yours, I was curious as to which acquisition methods have been the most effective.  So instead of assuming I knew without the facts, I gathered that information from roughly 20 different 90 win teams that were in the bottom half of revenue.  I have posted those results here.  Of course, they were largely ignored just as the industry assessments of this trade were ignored.  The facts are that most of those 90 win teams produced twice as much war from players that were acquired before every having a 1.5 WAR season than they did from free agency and trading for players that had produced a 1.5 WAR season.  The facts would strongly suggest your angst is a product of not knowing that history.

[rv78]

53 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I heard/read 8-10 assessments of the trades from various reporters and former GMs.  Not one of them indicated this jeopardized the present and the generally consensus was the either this was a very good trade for the twins.  There were also at least 4 or 5 articles on the most likely player to be traded by each team.  All of those articles listed Polanco because of the Twins INF depth.  Are every single one of these people incompetent?   Show us a link where someone who gets paid to render an opinion that agrees with you.   I expect another uninformed quip that sounds smart instead of backing up your statement.

Trading for prospects is by far the most effective way to build a winner.  A couple years ago after seeing many similar statements to yours, I was curious as to which acquisition methods have been the most effective.  So instead of assuming I knew without the facts, I gathered that information from roughly 20 different 90 win teams that were in the bottom half of revenue.  I have posted those results here.  Of course, they were largely ignored just as the industry assessments of this trade were ignored.  The facts are that most of those 90 win teams produced twice as much war from players that were acquired before every having a 1.5 WAR season than they did from free agency and trading for players that had produced a 1.5 WAR season.  The facts would strongly suggest your angst is a product of not knowing that history.

I've never advocated for NOT trading Polanco. In fact, I've said Kepler should have been traded as well. And I said they BOTH should have been traded for prospects. The FACT is they got nothing in return to help them NOW. If you think Topa is going to be a game changer then that is your opinion, not mine. A pitcher like him can be grabbed off the FA list easily enough, you don't have to trade for them. If you NEED a starter you don't acquire an injured one. Without Polanco and Kepler you free up $20+ million and use it for a QUALITY Free Agent starter. Does $20M along with the $5M then spent on Santana get you one of those? ABSOLUTELY. 

[chpettit19]

8 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

1:28 not 1:48 which is what you are referring too.  I gave a specific time stamp to call attention to specific statement and you blow right through it to hear something not related to anything.   

Then, as if in an overt bid to make my point, you start with an article that doesn't even quote him but indicates he's working on something else right now.  The references don't get any closer after that.  Certainty nothing that supports the malicious malquotes I called out, not even in the same ballpark. And yes, I had already read all those prior to posting originally and was well aware of the same quote used in four separate articles.

If you could address the specific statement by Falvey between 1:28 and 1:45 of the link, I'd appreciate it.  It gets right to the heart of the discussion and deserves to be viewed next to your statements. 

I figured out how to do a transcript from a video, yay tech me, so here it is.  

Q: Do you have enough starting pitching depth?

Falvey: There's no such thing. I think it's a, it's a misnomer to think that you have enough starting pitching at any moment in time, because the second you think you do maybe there's an injury or setback or something else that happened. So we focus on just building out as much as we can, you're going to need some guys from the minor leagues to step up for you. There's young kids, like David Festa, like Simeon Woods Richardson guys that are in AAA that are going to need to step up and help. 

My opinion is that man is never not looking for pitching.  He's looking for pitching in his Christmas stocking, under the bed, Seattle, you name it.  But that's one observers opinion only. 

Yeah, I understood it was 1:28, which is why I said 1:28 in my post and was referring to the same quote you just provided. If you want to take that as him saying they're still actively searching for major league starting pitching, great. I disagree 100%.

He is literally quoted in multiple of those articles saying they're turning their attention to the position player side. I don't know why you think it's so crazy for me to suggest that them trading for DeSclafani and then Falvey being immediately quoted by multiple reliable Twins sources as stating they're shifting their attention to the position player side is him saying they're done looking for MLB starting pitching. You asked for quotes and I gave you quotes and your response is "well not those quotes, different quotes."

This is a nonsense discussion. You can take his quotes however you want. You can think I was too hard on him all you want. The facts are that they acquired 1 major league starting pitcher this offseason. Immediately after acquiring that pitcher they said they were shifting their attention to the position player side. All they acquired after that was position players and throw away relievers. I pointed these things out. I'm sorry if you feel my choices of words were too strong. But I stand by them since I can provide multiple articles quoting Falvey and give you the exact transactions that took place which all support my statements. Do you have any sources suggesting the Twins were in on Lorenzen at a steep discount after they knew DeSclafani was hurt? Clevinger? Any starting pitcher at all after they acquired DeSclafani? Or did they acquire him, say they were shifting to the position player side, and we never hear even a whisper of them being in on any other starting pitcher? 

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, rv78 said:

I've never advocated for NOT trading Polanco. In fact, I've said Kepler should have been traded as well. And I said they BOTH should have been traded for prospects. The FACT is they got nothing in return to help them NOW. If you think Topa is going to be a game changer then that is your opinion, not mine. A pitcher like him can be grabbed off the FA list easily enough, you don't have to trade for them. If you NEED a starter you don't acquire an injured one. Without Polanco and Kepler you free up $20+ million and use it for a QUALITY Free Agent starter. Does $20M along with the $5M then spent on Santana get you one of those? ABSOLUTELY. 

I have no problem with the concept you suggest. However, there is the problem in executing that strategy.  The vast majority of the time the market revolves around  those high-end free being signed first.  Then, the trade market heats up.  Executing this strategy would require signing the free agent and then hoping you can trade both Kepler and Polanco.  That’s not exactly good management practice.

There is also the assumption that this free agent acquisition will be more productive than Kepler / Topa / Margot / and Santana combined.   That is not only unlikely.  It’s very risky given how often pitchers are injured.  IMO, the best approach is to add the players they did and see if they have an actual contender.  If so, they can acquire a SP at the deadline while also having Kepler / Topa / Margot, and Santana.   
 

[nicksaviking]

46 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I have no problem with the concept you suggest. However, there is the problem in executing that strategy.  The vast majority of the time the market revolves around  those high-end free being signed first.  Then, the trade market heats up.  Executing this strategy would require signing the free agent and then hoping you can trade both Kepler and Polanco.  That’s not exactly good management practice.

There is also the assumption that this free agent acquisition will be more productive than Kepler / Topa / Margot / and Santana combined.   That is not only unlikely.  It’s very risky given how often pitchers are injured.  IMO, the best approach is to add the players they did and see if they have an actual contender.  If so, they can acquire a SP at the deadline while also having Kepler / Topa / Margot, and Santana.   
 

No, it's Kepler/Topa/Margot/Santana vs. Big Free Agent/Every internal option the Twins have available. 

Margot and Santana are replacement level players at best, They provide next to no value. Topa is a wild card.

 

[Major League Ready]

7 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

No, it's Kepler/Topa/Margot/Santana vs. Big Free Agent/Every internal option the Twins have available. 

Margot and Santana are replacement level players at best, They provide next to no value. Topa is a wild card.

 

I said all along that I had no problem if they wanted to roll Miranda, Martin, etc.  How does this change the fact that under normal market conditions, they would have to sign the player hoping to find a good return for Polanco and Kepler.  While Kepler is no sure thing, did we learn nothing from writing him off last year.  He is not a replacement level player. 

As fans we can propose any scenario without regard to the viability or risk associated with these moves.   We would have roasted the FO had they done this and then had to dump Polanco and Kepler if a good return was not available. 

[nicksaviking]

11 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I said all along that I had no problem if they wanted to roll Miranda, Martin, etc.  How does this change the fact that under normal market conditions, they would have to sign the player hoping to find a good return for Polanco and Kepler.  While Kepler is no sure thing, did we learn nothing from writing him off last year.  He is not a replacement level player. 

As fans we can propose any scenario without regard to the viability or risk associated with these moves.   We would have roasted the FO had they done this and then had to dump Polanco and Kepler if a good return was not available. 

I said Margot and Santana were replacement level players, not Kepler.

I only wanted three free agents, and all three would have been affordable even to the Twins. But the Twins got greedy or too cute, which is fine if it works but it backfired this time. They wouldn't have had to dump Polanco or Kepler after signing free agents had they TRADED Polanco before the free agents were ready to sign. They tried to get a good player for Polanco (Bryce Miller from the sound of it), and by the time they realized that wasn't happening, all the good free agents they could have afforded were gone. They signed Carlos Santana about the second they freed up money from moving Polanco, there's next to no chance they weren't interested in Rhys Hoskins and Justin Turner instead. 

[Woof Bronzer]

20 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

That "relevant part at 1:28" was him listing off all the guys they already had and saying they were happy with them while giving absolutely no impression that they were looking for additional starting pitching. Which isn't "quite the opposite" of what I said, but in fact is exactly what I said. They had no intention of bringing in any more starting pitching after they brought in DeSclafani. I hope your "if it's not a direct quote you're flat out wrong" condescension felt good.

This article doesn't quote him, but mentions that Falvey mentioned turning to the position player side after the trade, like outfield depth and first base. Which is, again, exactly what I said.

Here's another one that actually quotes him about the outfield group and adding flexibility while, clearly unreliable source I shouldn't use to base my comments on, Do-Hyoung Park also says the Twins are turning their attention to the position player side after acquiring DeSclafani..

Here's one from The Athletic about the trade where he's quoted as them expecting to use the money saved to address other ways to improve the club, and mentioning DeSclafani as a starter (news flash, they already had 4 starters in the rotation so DeSclafani was the 5th and final one). Maybe Dan Hayes and Ken Rosenthal shouldn't be trusted for me to base my statements on either.

Dang it, now I have to stop trusting Gleeman as well, because here's an article from him where he quotes Falvey saying "I think our focus might turn more to the position player route" when talking about getting DeSclafani in the return. 

Wow, Dan Hayes really doubling down on his untrustworthiness by writing another article again quoting Falvey as saying they're turning their attention to the position player side. Same quote as Gleeman so they're probably in cahoots on this misleading media mess. This article is all about how they can spend the savings from the Polanco deal. The only talk about adding another pitcher is a reference to the trades for frontline starters that didn't happen while Hayes also states "for now, it seems as if those overtures are on the back burner." 

I have a meeting to get to so I'm going to stop at 5 articles supporting my statements that DeSclafani was their rotation move and they weren't looking for other starters after they got him.

I'm sorry I made such a stretch as to take the reporting from 4 highly trusted baseball and Twins reporters to be accurate and took the liberty to read through Falvey's masterful "media deflection" when he used the phrase "I think" instead of flat out saying it. I hope your condescension felt good. You're right, though. Technically Falvey didn't come right out and say that DeSclafani was their only rotation move and they weren't going to look for any other starters. He got real masterful and snuck in that "I think" to throw everyone off their scent. 

I hope 5 sources was enough to quench your thirst. And I hope your "well technically" speech felt good. That "I think" is really going to give me nightmares on how I could be so brash as to take his statement as truth. I feel just terrible for my "disingenuous interpretation" because he dropped an "I think" in there.

Wow.  Bravo, sir, bravo.  Gotta admit, though, I was kinda looking forward to a condescending, arrogant, and factually wrong lecture on the concept of revisionist history.  Maybe the poster can use himself as a shining example.

[Riverbrian]

The front office has a hard job to do so I really try to look at things from all angles. I don't always succeed but I try. 

I can concede the necessity of the trade based on getting something for an expiring contract. The acquisition of Gabriel Gonzalez alone probably made the Twins the winner when it comes to value. Only time will tell if they win the trade but at the time of the deal. Polanco is a free agent after this season so getting a top 100 prospect is a good get. 

However... I can't concede that this trade improved the 2024 club. Seattle acquired Polanco and gave up a prospect to improve the club in 2024 not 2025 or 2029. What the Mariners are doing acquiring a top line player is what the Twins should be doing.  

I can also concede the necessity of the trade based on budget restrictions.

Every team has a budget. 

However... the money saved in the Polanco trade was spent acquiring Santana, Desclafini and Margot. That's 27 million worth of baseball players with 14 million of it paid by other clubs to not play for them. The Dodgers, Giants and Mariners are all paying money for Disco and Margot to not play for them. We took a big piece and turned him into multiple smaller pieces. We had plenty of smaller pieces to choose from... we needed more big pieces. 

Ultimately in my eyes... it's really hard to justify a team scratching for dollars under a reduced budget with a team that made the playoffs in 2023... to spend 14 million on short side platoons. Instead of spending 14 million on one player that could make a difference every single day.  

 

[USAFChief]

Bottom line: trading Polanco is certainly defensible. IF it helps the team. 

The return weakened the 2024 team. That's incontrovertible. 

If you think a fringe top 100 outfielder who might help the Twins in 2027 is a good return, bully for you. 

It's malpractice in my eyes. This team needed starting pitching. They added none and lost a good hitter. 

Weakening a team that should be eyeing a playoff run is awful management. 

 

[chpettit19]

44 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

The front office has a hard job to do so I really try to look at things from all angles. I don't always succeed but I try. 

I can concede the necessity of the trade based on getting something for an expiring contract. The acquisition of Gabriel Gonzalez alone probably made the Twins the winner when it comes to value. Only time will tell if they win the trade but at the time of the deal. Polanco is a free agent after this season so getting a top 100 prospect is a good get. 

However... I can't concede that this trade improved the 2024 club. Seattle acquired Polanco and gave up a prospect to improve the club in 2024 not 2025 or 2029. What the Mariners are doing acquiring a top line player is what the Twins should be doing.  

I can also concede the necessity of the trade based on budget restrictions.

Every team has a budget. 

However... the money saved in the Polanco trade was spent acquiring Santana, Desclafini and Margot. That's 27 million worth of baseball players with 14 million of it paid by other clubs to not play for them. The Dodgers, Giants and Mariners are all paying money for Disco and Margot to not play for them. We took a big piece and turned him into multiple smaller pieces. We had plenty of smaller pieces to choose from... we needed more big pieces. 

Ultimately in my eyes... it's really hard to justify a team scratching for dollars under a reduced budget with a team that made the playoffs in 2023... to spend 14 million on short side platoons. Instead of spending 14 million on one player that could make a difference every single day.  

 

I will note that Polanco is not a free agent at the end of this season. He has a $12 million club option for next year as well.

[Riverbrian]

28 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I will note that Polanco is not a free agent at the end of this season. He has a $12 million club option for next year as well.

You are correct. 

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

Bottom line: trading Polanco is certainly defensible. IF it helps the team. 

The return weakened the 2024 team. That's incontrovertible. 

If you think a fringe top 100 outfielder who might help the Twins in 2027 is a good return, bully for you. 

It's malpractice in my eyes. This team needed starting pitching. They added none and lost a good hitter. 

Weakening a team that should be eyeing a playoff run is awful management. 

 

I agree with you. 

My adjectives are a little lighter but it was a step back in my eyes. 

[USAFChief]

1 minute ago, Riverbrian said:

I agree with you. 

My adjectives are a little lighter but it was a step back in my eyes. 

I disagree. Your adjectives are exactly the same. 

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

The front office has a hard job to do so I really try to look at things from all angles. I don't always succeed but I try. 

I can concede the necessity of the trade based on getting something for an expiring contract. The acquisition of Gabriel Gonzalez alone probably made the Twins the winner when it comes to value. Only time will tell if they win the trade but at the time of the deal. Polanco is a free agent after this season so getting a top 100 prospect is a good get. 

However... I can't concede that this trade improved the 2024 club. Seattle acquired Polanco and gave up a prospect to improve the club in 2024 not 2025 or 2029. What the Mariners are doing acquiring a top line player is what the Twins should be doing.  

I can also concede the necessity of the trade based on budget restrictions.

Every team has a budget. 

However... the money saved in the Polanco trade was spent acquiring Santana, Desclafini and Margot. That's 27 million worth of baseball players with 14 million of it paid by other clubs to not play for them. The Dodgers, Giants and Mariners are all paying money for Disco and Margot to not play for them. We took a big piece and turned him into multiple smaller pieces. We had plenty of smaller pieces to choose from... we needed more big pieces. 

Ultimately in my eyes... it's really hard to justify a team scratching for dollars under a reduced budget with a team that made the playoffs in 2023... to spend 14 million on short side platoons. Instead of spending 14 million on one player that could make a difference every single day.  

 

You are assuming that one expensive player would be more important to building a winner but have you looked back at successful mid/small market teams to substantiate this opinion?  You know I have compiled the history and facts don't support this assumption.  The opposite is generally the case where free agents contributed significantly to a below average revenue team winning 90 games or more.  The Twins already have one 30M+ free agent.  Can you give an example of a successful team with equal or less revenue than the Twins that had two players earning a total near $60M?

[USAFChief]

14 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

You are assuming that one expensive player would be more important to building a winner but have you looked back at successful mid/small market teams to substantiate this opinion?  You know I have compiled the history and facts don't support this assumption.  The opposite is generally the case where free agents contributed significantly to a below average revenue team winning 90 games or more.  The Twins already have one 30M+ free agent.  Can you give an example of a successful team with equal or less revenue than the Twins that had two players earning a total near $60M?

Can you do this rather slow poster a favor and tell me what any of this has to do with RB's post?

[Riverbrian]

8 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

You are assuming that one expensive player would be more important to building a winner but have you looked back at successful mid/small market teams to substantiate this opinion?  You know I have compiled the history and facts don't support this assumption.  The opposite is generally the case where free agents contributed significantly to a below average revenue team winning 90 games or more.  The Twins already have one 30M+ free agent.  Can you give an example of a successful team with equal or less revenue than the Twins that had two players earning a total near $60M?

I'm not assuming that. 

Actually I'm not assuming anything... what I am doing is questioning the value of Santana and Margot types in comparison to Polanco and a major league minimum player at the same dollar amount. 

Have I looked back at mid/small market teams to substantiate this opinion? Yes... and you should know that I have. 

We were discussing this on March 3. I bolded one of my replies to you below...  where I acknowledge your research and added some considerations. The bottom line is that there are times when small market teams need to get ahead and move a Corbin Burnes for future considerations... It is a viable strategy.... but there are also times when those teams that you studied have not done what you say they do. Cleveland and Tampa by themselves have traded vets for prospects with each other. Joe Ryan was a young prospect that Tampa provided us for the rental of Nelson Cruz. It isn't one size fits all... Context matters. But to answer your question... Yes... I have looked at mid/small market teams... I've looked at the big market teams to... All 30 clubs to be exact. And you should know that I have. 

I'm guessing that the Brewers would be a good team to add to your list of 3 teams. The Brewers have spent a lot of time in contention and they have loudly at times moved players on expiring contracts for prospects and certainly revenue challenged, 

Trading value before they reach free agency is absolutely a viable strategy. Cleveland, Tampa and Oakland have done a great job of this as you point out. 

Now there are some considerations that come to my mind. 

1. There are primarily 3 ways that teams acquire players for their team. Draft/IFA Development, Free Agency/Waivers and of course trades. If a team doesn't participate fully in one of those areas.... for example If they shop the waiver wires and bargain basement free agents... it would in theory produce a low percentage in that avenue of talent acquisition... therefore a natural by-product would be higher percentage in your model from the other two avenues. Development or Trades,  You have 100% to account for. If Free Agency only accounts for 10%.... There is 90% to divide up between the other two. 

You'd have to compare contrast across all teams. I'd guess that any team that typically stays out of free agency is going to have a higher percentage of development or trades. 

2. Of the 3 primary ways to acquire talent or WAR as you are using as a measurement. Only 1 avenue requires sending WAR Back and that is trades. Kyle Manzardo will probably be a shining star in your research for a while if you continue with it. But, the WAR that Aaron Civale who they traded for him has to be factored in. Right Now... I'm betting that Cleveland is sorry that they gave up a lot of future WAR by trading Junior Caminero. Nolan Jones looks like a big negative in that department. Will Benson with the Reds might be someone they would like back. 45% via trade does look impressive but I can't help wonder how much WAR went the other way. 

3. Context has to be considered. You use the Rays as an example and rightly so. However, They are the team gave up Manzardo for Civale. They were the team that gave up Joe Ryan for Nelson Cruz. Context contending or not contending determines if they acquire prospects or if they acquire expiring contracts. 

I agree with you... the Twins should pay attention to what these teams are doing. They have done well. But... Context matters. I think the Twins are contenders... I think Polanco is one of the best hitters on the team. I would have kept him.

 

[Riverbrian]

31 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Can you give an example of a successful team with equal or less revenue than the Twins that had two players earning a total near $60M?

I have never suggested adding another player at 30M. 

[Danchat]

21 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

I'm not upset about trading Polanco. However, that trade would have made way more sense if the Twins had used his money to get a better bat to plug into the lineup every day. But they didn't, they signed Carlos Santana and traded for Manuel Margot who insanely they are OK paying 8M dollars. It was a lateral moves at best. As it is (particularly with Margot of all people the RH DH), I'd rather have just kept Polanco and maybe tried trading him again at the trade deadline.

I think the front office was too focused on getting something for Polanco AND getting rid of his salary and failed to see the urgency and big picture of EITHER getting a good player for Polanco OR getting rid of his salary. It took too long for them to understand they weren't getting the good player, and by the time they finally settled for the Mariners offer, the good free agents they could have used the money on signed elsewhere. With nobody good left to spend their scratch off winnings on, they said "Screw it, we need to spend the rest of this somewhere."

Ownership handcuffed the front office this year, but the front office either panicked or tried to get to cute with it. It's hard to see this as anything other than a failure. I'm not going to crucify them for it, they've done better in past years and this isn't their epitaph, but it still was a chain reaction of poor choices and I think it's OK for the fans to acknowledge that.

I think that sums up my thoughts well. I was fine with them trading Polanco and saving money/getting a top prospect/getting Topa... but then they spent money on two questionable hitters in Santana and Margot, and didn't make a move for another starter. I thought they would move a couple prospects for a starter, but it seems we may have to wait until the deadline for that to happen.

[nicksaviking]

6 minutes ago, Danchat said:

I think that sums up my thoughts well. I was fine with them trading Polanco and saving money/getting a top prospect/getting Topa... but then they spent money on two questionable hitters in Santana and Margot, and didn't make a move for another starter. I thought they would move a couple prospects for a starter, but it seems we may have to wait until the deadline for that to happen.

Yeah, I wanted them to trade prospects for a top starter, hard to fault them for not getting one when no other team was able to pry one away, but you probably can fault them for not having a better read on the market and understanding it wasn't going to happen this year. Which sucks because the Twins had been good at trading for pitchers in the offseason but terrible at trading for them at the deadline.

You have an advantage in the offseason as you have that much more intel on your prospects. Waiting four months until the deadline, the other team is given a much better read on them.

[DJL44]

22 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

Polonco hit 2nd in the order for us during the playoffs last year. He is hitting third in the lineup for the Mariners thus far this year. 

With an OPS+ of 6 and bad defense. If they hadn't traded Polanco many people here would be complaining about the missed opportunity. Based on the small sample size of the first week Falvey looks like a genius.

[Riverbrian]

2 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

With an OPS+ of 6. If they hadn't traded Polanco many people here would be complaining about the missed opportunity.

Yes some would... most definitely however... I tend to divert my focus from people who quote 22 AB samples.