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

[KirbyDome89]

I'd love to hear the "they didn't want him/he was a throw in," crowd rationalize this organization handing DeSclafani a rotation spot and dedicating 1/3 of their paltry offseason spending towards his salary. Make it make sense guys.... 

[nicksaviking]

3 minutes ago, Schmoeman5 said:

I always thought DeSclafani was a throw in. There is no way the Twins were going into 2024 counting on him to be a part of the starting rotation knowing his injury history. But that's what they were selling the fans. The Mariners got what they wanted and needed without giving up anything the Twins need. Topa the morning may help when he's ready. I don't care if Polanco is 0 for 50. He WILL contribute. Topa MIGHT. The Twins might still get something out of this trade in the future. But for the 2024 season it is doubtful. And that trade was supposed to add help NOW. I'm not seeing it. So how does this trade rate an A B or C. I'll grudgingly give them a D-

Agree bad trade, but not because the 2024 version of Dylan Bundy got hurt.

[nicksaviking]

44 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

I'd love to hear the "they didn't want him/he was a throw in," crowd rationalize this organization handing DeSclafani a rotation spot and dedicating 1/3 of their paltry offseason spending towards his salary. Make it make sense guys.... 

They had to dump Polanco's 10M salary per ownership, that was clearly the impetus of the move. They were always going to remove Polanco, Kepler or Vazquez and nobody was taking Vazquez off of their hands. Obviously the Twins 'wanted' DeSclafani or they'd have just DFA'd him the second he got off the airplane. But they needed to use some of that savings for a starter anyway and DeSclafani's remaining salary was a Chris Archer/Dylan Bundy figure which is what they'd have had to pay for what was left at the bottom of the free agency barrel. 

I said all offseason I'd prefer to keep Polanco and his much more consistent bat over Kepler, but obviously the Twins felt otherwise.

[Battle ur tail off]

The problem is not what they got for Polanco. The problem is they didn't bring in any starting pitching help, yet lost 2 starters that were good to very good last year. 

They also are apparently banking on Buxton to play CF all year(yeah right). 

It's fine I guess, it's the Twins, but after all the excitement they had last year after the playoffs, they flat out just told all of their fans, "hey, we aren't going to try again". And are expecting everyone to swallow it right up. 

We just watched our #3 pitcher yesterday get lit up like a christmas tree. IDK, this season will probably be fine, but I have lowered my expectations back down to the level of chip chair and chance IF we win the division. Rather than how I felt last year at the end of the year which was "next year is going to be our year".

 

[KirbyDome89]

2 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

They had to dump Polanco's 10M salary; per ownership, that was clearly the impetus of the move. They were always going to remove Polanco, Kepler or Vazquez and nobody was taking Vazquez off of their hands. Obviously the Twins 'wanted' DeSclafani or they'd have just DFA'd him the second he got off the airplane. But his remaining salary was a Chris Archer/Dylan Bundy figure which is what they'd have had to pay for what was left in the bottom of the free agency barrel anyway. 

I said all offseason I'd prefer to keep Polanco and his much more consistent bat, but obviously the Twins felt otherwise.

Or they could've non-tendered Farmer + not taken on $4M for a guy they supposedly didn't want. That's Polanco's $10M. Agreed, I think it's pretty obvious this team thought they were getting a budget starter, or at least better than bottom of the barrel guy, in DeSclafani. The idea that this FO was eating his salary to balance the trade, or buying a low tier lotto ticket on a shoestring budget is nonsense. 

The Twins shuffled money and players, swapping ceiling for floor. 

[DJL44]

44 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

And if he needed trading, there was a better return out there than DeSclafani, a 30+ yr old reliever with zero history, and an A ball outfielder. 

From who? The Blue Jays were the only other team rumored to have interest. Seattle was the only serious bidder. We can see why - they're so desperate for infielders they're playing Polanco at 3B.

[Aggies7]

The twins rotation after Lopez:

[Fire Dan Gladden]

3 hours ago, Dman said:

They needed to recalibrate the roster to accommodate Lee at some point.  Unfortunately he is injured right now, but as this spring showed they were always most likely going to need to make room for Lee and unless there was an injury it was always going to be hard to work Lee in anyway. Jullien has 2nd base filled already with production likely equal or greater than Polanco.

SSS but Polanco isn't lighting it up right now as he 1 for 14 or something like that. I like Polanco, but he needed to be moved.

Smart teams do not move players that constantly outperform their contract, especially playing a position of need.  Lewis and Correa had/have injury questions coming into the year.  Julien is not long for 2B.  Lee is still an unknown.  Moving Polanco, especially for what they got in return, was one of many moves this admin made to make this team worse the sake of saving money

I would buy the "sell high" argument if the Twins actually got a strong return in the move, but they didn't.  They got salary relief and fliers.  

[Battle ur tail off]

I like Ryan, Paddack and Varland. But in all honesty, after watching Varland and Paddack in the BP at the end of last year/the playoffs. I think they would have been excellent HAMMERS out there had the Twins kept their guys or brought in some others to take up some rotation spots. 

[sweetmusicviola16]

I look at the make up of the trade a little different than others. I see it as We received Topa and cash for taking DeSclafani off of Seattles hands. We traded Polanco for Gonzalez and Bowen. This is how I see it. The organization said they were not trading Polanco for prospects. They did not do as they said they would. That is my opinion.

[jkcarew]

I agree…this was different. We actually KNEW this pitcher was broken BEFORE we acquired him.

 

 

But how again is that supposed to make me feel better??

[jud6312]

4 minutes ago, jkcarew said:

This was different. We actually KNEW this pitcher was broken BEFORE we acquired him.

 

 

I feel so much better.

It's kicking a dead horse, but they had to know that Mahle wasn't 100% when they traded for him. It seems to be "their thing" - buy and hope for the best. Although I'm not sure what about this medical staff would provide them with any clarity or confidence. 

[jkcarew]

57 minutes ago, sweetmusicviola16 said:

I look at the make up of the trade a little different than others. I see it as We received Topa and cash for taking DeSclafani off of Seattles hands. We traded Polanco for Gonzalez and Bowen. This is how I see it. The organization said they were not trading Polanco for prospects. They did not do as they said they would. That is my opinion.

I think this is a pretty good take on it. Probably not a “bad” deal in a vacuum (we’ll see). But not what was indicated nor expected or desired for a contend-now team.

[jkcarew]

16 minutes ago, jud6312 said:

they had to know that Mahle wasn't 100% when they traded for him

I’d like to THINK their due diligence processes were competent enough to pick up on Mahle’s arm health…but Hajjar (well regarded at the time), Encarnacion-Strand, AND Steer…that hints otherwise.

[bean5302]

3 hours ago, weneedneshek said:

....are you quoting self reported unaudited numbers? I sure hope not

The numbers come from Statista.com 2020-2022, extrapolated for 2023.

[chpettit19]

Twins: "We need to bring in starting pitching this offseason."

Twins: Trade for Anthony DeSclafani knowing he has arm problems and say they're not looking for any other starting pitchers for the MLB team.

Some Twins fans: Well they didn't really want DeSclafani.

They said they needed to add starting pitching. They added starting pitching. The narrative that they didn't want DeSclafani is ignoring their words and actions. They took a gamble and lost. Again. Do people really think the Mariners were so desperate to save $4 million that they gave up a top 100 prospect to do it? The Twins saved even more on the deal so why weren't they the ones giving up Rodriguez to get the Mariners to take on their "salary dump" of Polanco? The Mariners kicked in $4 million. So people really think the Mariners were so eager to get rid of DeSclafani that they paid $4 million and a top 100 prospect to "save" $4 million?

If the Twins didn't actually want DeSclafani why didn't they just kick in $4 million with Polanco and not fill a rotation spot with DeSclafani? Would've left Seattle in the same financial position and the Twins could've gone and filled their rotation spot with someone else. DeSclafani may not have been their #1 option, but the narrative that they really didn't want him doesn't make any sense. They accepted him in the trade when they didn't have to (again, could've just kicked in the 4 mil) and announced immediately afterward that they were done shopping for starting pitching. They were happy enough to put him in their rotation. They gambled and lost. Again.

[chpettit19]

7 hours ago, Dman said:

Yeah I get that but what would it have cost them in the FA market to get an arm like Topa?  He is likely worth more than 1.25 if you don't make the trade.

It cost them 1.5 to get Jay Jackson who had pretty similar numbers last year. Hoffman and Coulombe were in camp for basically nothing last year. Duarte is on the roster for the minimum. Their entire bullpen strategy has been to bring in as many fliers as possible for as little (in any kind of resource) as possible and see what shakes out over the first half of the year. Trading an everyday, heart of the order hitter for one would be very much out of character for this FO.

[Dman]

13 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

It cost them 1.5 to get Jay Jackson who had pretty similar numbers last year. Hoffman and Coulombe were in camp for basically nothing last year. Duarte is on the roster for the minimum. Their entire bullpen strategy has been to bring in as many fliers as possible for as little (in any kind of resource) as possible and see what shakes out over the first half of the year. Trading an everyday, heart of the order hitter for one would be very much out of character for this FO.

Yeah I think Jackson and Hoffman work for me not as sure about Coulombe and Duarte.  Look I am not a huge fan of the return but if they had a mostly healthy infield with Lewis entrenched at third, Correa at short and Jullien at 2nd you could be looking at sitting a 10M dollar player on the bench most days.  Sure you can shuttle Jullien to 1st and move Kirilloff to left some days but then your sending Wallner down or Kirilloff and all those hitters had OPS's higher than Polanco last year.  All of them are younger and cheaper than Polanco.

OK worst case scenario Royce gets hurt the second game of the season and yeah there would be room for Polanco.  Still Castro and his .750 OPS isn't that far off the mark and he can steal bases and play better defense than Polanco as well.  I can live with that for a month or two.  Farmer is also there to bridge the gap for injuries, would I prefer Polo? sure but I don't think a guy that wasn't going to be a likely starter if all the guys are healthy was a guy they absolutely needed to hang onto and don't forget Polanco comes with injury concerns himself.  He might not last the season either.

IMO the front office looked at the numbers and got the best deal they could for Polanco.  As mentioned above they have guys in place that were as good as he was offensively already plugged in for less and most all them offer more defensively. As good as he is with his age and injury history he wasn't going to fetch a difference maker and he didn't.  Even with the early injury to Lewis they have coverage and Lee will be looking for a spot once healthy as well.  I just think the Polanco angle is over blown.

[nicksaviking]

47 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

It cost them 1.5 to get Jay Jackson who had pretty similar numbers last year. Hoffman and Coulombe were in camp for basically nothing last year. Duarte is on the roster for the minimum. Their entire bullpen strategy has been to bring in as many fliers as possible for as little (in any kind of resource) as possible and see what shakes out over the first half of the year. Trading an everyday, heart of the order hitter for one would be very much out of character for this FO.

Well clearly they felt that they had to trade Polanco, Kepler or Vazquez and no one was going to trade for Vazquez.

It was either get DeSclafani tossed into the deal for 4M, or sign someone like Carlos Carrasco, Chase Anderson or Zach Plesac to go along with their other budget players they acquired. I doubt anyone would raise too many alarms if it had been one of those others that had gotten hurt.

I'm not disappointed that they took a gamble on an injury plagued 5/6 starter and he got hurt, and considering the comments on this site when he was acquired, I don't understand why others are. In fact, better an injury plagued guy than finding a Dylan Bundy who'll never get yanked from the rotation barring the apocalypse. What I'm disappointed in is the caliber of players they committed themselves to chasing. Get one GOOD player, not three or four replacement level players. Heck, they could have had Justin Turner and STILL gotten one of these replacement level players should they still have had the urge. 

[Jocko87]

The only reason he was penciled as the 5th starter is he didn't have options.  If he had options all the discussion would have been where he fits on the depth spectrum around Brent Headricks neighborhood.  He could have just as easily ended up in the bullpen.  He was just one of approximately 437 low voltage pitching moves from this offseason.  The lack of any other starter moves makes it seem like a bigger deal than it is.  

The most important question is, does he still get a ring?  Does he get 33% of a ring to match his salary? Or 3 different chances at a third of a ring? These are the important questions while we ponder the water under the bridge. 

[USAFChief]

2 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

The only reason he was penciled as the 5th starter is he didn't have options.  If he had options all the discussion would have been where he fits on the depth spectrum around Brent Headricks neighborhood.  He could have just as easily ended up in the bullpen.  He was just one of approximately 437 low voltage pitching moves from this offseason.  The lack of any other starter moves makes it seem like a bigger deal than it is.  

The most important question is, does he still get a ring?  

He was written in ink as one of the five starters the minute the Mariners gleefully agreed to the trade.

Also, "the lack of any other starter moves makes it seem like a bigger deal than it is"...

Wow, what a bad take. Among other things, it completely invalidates the rest of your post.

 

 

[Jocko87]

16 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

He was written in ink as one of the five starters the minute the Mariners gleefully agreed to the trade.

Also, "the lack of any other starter moves makes it seem like a bigger deal than it is"...

Wow, what a bad take. Among other things, it completely invalidates the rest of your post.

 

 

If they would have traded for a Burnes nobody would care about poor Disco, that's just basics.  They would have erased that "ink" an half a second.  He would have Sands role in the pen and nobody would bat an eye.  I do suppose we would have 17 articles about a 6 man rotation but that's a different issue.

It's not even a remotely controversial or hot take. 

[USAFChief]

13 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

If they would have traded for a Burnes nobody would care about poor Disco, that's just basics.  They would have erased that "ink" an half a second.  He would have Sands role in the pen and nobody would bat an eye.  I do suppose we would have 17 articles about a 6 man rotation but that's a different issue.

It's not even a remotely controversial or hot take. 

Newsflash: they didn't trade for Burnes.

Or anyone else.

Desclafani was it. Written in ink. Done deal. Counted on.

 

[Fezig]

18 hours ago, Bamboo Bat said:

I don't buy this line of reasoning. At all. 

It was well known from the day after the World Series ended that the Twins were going to have to attempt to replace innings tossed by Gray & Maeda in 2023. Desclafani was 100% not anybody's first choice - including the front office, I'm sure - but to say "the front office didn't proactively target him" is splitting fine, fine, fine hairs. The front office was looking for a starter that wasn't going to cost much & that target ended up being Desclafani. 

I add this to the pile of injured pitchers the Twins took a bad chance on. But water under the bridge. Hopefully Varland & some of our young arms stockpiled in AAA can hold down the fort in '24. 

The reasoning does fit the Twins front office and managerial belief that a strike out is a productive at-bat. That said, the trade makes perfect sense.

[Ctwink]

"blah blah blah"

 

Point is the Twins picked up another broken starter.  You can parse it anyway you want, but the facts still remain.

[h2oface]

13 hours ago, jkcarew said:

I agree…this was different. We actually KNEW this pitcher was broken BEFORE we acquired him.

 

 

But how again is that supposed to make me feel better??

We knew Mahle was broken, too. 

[TwinsDr2021]

9 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Well clearly they felt that they had to trade Polanco, Kepler or Vazquez and no one was going to trade for Vazquez.

This take makes the FO look even worse (yet I believe you are correct) for picking up the 10.5 option for Polanco, I can't imagine that conversation between the FO and owner went, here is the plan, I know were suppose to cut payroll but to cut payroll and make the team better we are going to pick up this 10.5 million option, but wait we are going to trade that money for two prospects, a relief pitcher and a starter that has had a injury plagued year and a 50/50 chance of being good and bring back 5.25 million in salary. And the owners reply was, so you aren't actually cutting salary but raising it 5 million for a relief pitcher and pitcher that is 50/50 on playing, so that relief pitcher is in the back end of the pen? Well, possibly maybe but he actually slots below, Duran, Jax, Stewart and depending on match up after Okert, but for sure he should pitch higher on the list than the 36 year old guy we brought in for more money.

[laloesch]

20 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Twins desperately need to add starting pitching. Everyone, EVERYone knows this. 

Twins make crappy trade for dubious starter. BTW, the only starter added, all winter. 

Twins apologists: "This wasn't a trade for a starter."

C'mon. Seriously?

 

LOL.  You've officially entered the spin zone. 

When i read this article and ones similar to it, I get this impression:  the trade really wasn't about Anthony Desclafani, but the other players.  Uh huh, but he was a part of it wasn't he?  "Yeah but the trade really wasn't about Desclafani, but the other guys so he really doesn't count as part of the deal." 

Rolls eyes, semantics.  A spade is a spade.  Like it or not the Twins traded for that extra starter Desclafani, end of story.

[Riverbrian]

17 hours ago, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

I never liked Polo at 3B.  His sidearmed throws were slow and suspect accuracy-wise.  We still would have played Castro and Farmer at 3B with Lewis out and just not brought up Martin if Polo was still here.

Castro and Farmer over Polanco?

That is the exact opposite of what the Twins did in the playoffs. 

[laloesch]

20 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Twins desperately need to add starting pitching. Everyone, EVERYone knows this. 

Twins make crappy trade for dubious starter. BTW, the only starter added, all winter. 

Twins apologists: "This wasn't a trade for a starter."

C'mon. Seriously?

 

LOL.  You've officially entered the spin zone. 

When i read this article and ones similar to it, I get this impression:  the trade really wasn't about Anthony Desclafani, but the other players.  Uh huh, but he was a part of it wasn't he?  "Yeah but the trade really wasn't about Desclafani, but the other guys so he really doesn't count as part of the deal." 

Rolls eyes, semantics.  A spade is a spade.  Like it or not the Twins traded for that extra starter Desclafani, end of story.