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

[laloesch]

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

OHHHHH I think we should.  They did trade for him afterall.  A spade is a spade.  I'm tired of the apologists.  I was tired of them a long time ago. 

[Major League Ready]

36 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

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.

That's some creative math.  The $10.5M they paid Polanco is absolutely irrelevant given they traded him.  Somehow you missed the part in your calculation where they traded him and his salary went away.  Topa is worth at least the $1.25M.  One could argue he is worth more but let's assume it's a wash.  Therefore, they spent $4M for a SP with a 50/50 chance of playing and they got two prospects for free.  Had they drafted those prospects, they probably would have cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $4M in signing bonuses so one could reasonably say taking on the risk associated with DeSclafani cost them nothing.   

[rv78]

LOL. Let's all laugh at those who defend this FO. When you lose 2 good starters, and replace them with 1 broken starter, when they say their priority is to bring in a starter, but their choice is a broken a starter, and lose another good player (Polanco) to get that broken starter, in effect you've lost 3 good players and gotten what in return? A 32 year old 1 year wonder reliever that is just as likely to be bad as good, so you've gotten yourself, basically NOTHING! Every player brought in this off-season is a floor level player that won't improve anything.

[TwinsDr2021]

14 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

That's some creative math. 

Zero dollars if don't pick up Polanco's option, would have 1 million but didn't meet plate appearances.

Pick up Polanco's option and trade him for prospects - total cost whatever minor league players make

Pick up Polanco's option and trade him for a pitcher making 1.25 and another pitcher making 4 (since the other team covered the other 4) and two prospects - Total cost 5.25 plus the 2 minor league salaries.

That is not creative math that is facts! Did the payroll go down because of this transaction, NO, it went up 5.25 million. Did the Twins add a starter with this transaction, NO, Did the Twins add to the bullpen, yes. Does the 4 million they are paying hinder their payroll, that is what we have been told.

In another time (like any year where the team isn't crying about payroll) this was a good trade to make, trade a guy making money and get prospects, win/win, use that money to fill holes if needed. But that isn't the world we are living in this year. You can think it is a smart to use 4 million of this years salary to stock the minors, I don't not coming off of the year the Twins had last year.

 

[chpettit19]

10 hours ago, Dman said:

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.

Polanco would've DH'd for this team. Or played 1B with Santana never signed. Or they could've done your situation of moving Julien to 1B some and having Kirilloff and Wallner split LF and DH. I don't buy this idea that there was no place for Polanco to play. The DH spot was, and is, wide open on any team that has Carlos Santana in his age 38 season starting everyday against righties. They picked Santana and DeSclafani over Polanco. It's now turned into Santana over Polanco.

I agree they went and got the best deal they felt they could for Polanco. Disagree that they had 9 guys better than Polanco and that the Polanco angle is overblown. They had all those young guys in the playoffs last year and felt he was good enough to hit 2 hole then. Healthy Buxton coming back is the only real difference outside of Santana and now he doesn't have any spot at all? Jorge Polanco would've hit in the top 5 spots in this Twins order and they got a 32 year old reliever with 1 good year and 2 A ball players in return. I don't think it's overblown to say that trade hurt the 2024 Twins. Maybe Gonzalez breaks out and the Twins "win" the trade in the long run, but I'm not concerned with the long run after coming off an ALDS appearance. I'm concerned with taking an obvious step backwards coming off that ALDS appearance. But I understand and acknowledge that others find more redeeming value in the possible future value of that deal. I'm just not interested in that at this point in their team building cycle.

[nicksaviking]

1 hour ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

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.

I don't get how it's worse because the Twins picked up Polanco's option last year. They got a top 100 prospect and a relief pitcher as opposed to getting nothing. Is your assertation that the Twins were lucky to trade him at all? That never seemed likely, but even if it was, they'd probably have just pivoted to trading Kepler.

 

[Woof Bronzer]

7 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

If they would have traded for a Burnes nobody would care about poor Disco, that's just basics. 

Correct, if they would have gotten a good pitcher who would help the team instead of a hurt one who will never throw a pitch for the Twins, yes, fans would be more supportive of the move.  Brilliant take.

[chpettit19]

11 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.

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. 

Why is that clear? I don't think that's clear. I think they chose to trade Polanco because they thought DeSclafani could be at least a partial answer to their rotation hole. They could've non-tendered Kyle Farmer and not signed Carlos Santana. Kyle Farmer himself has stated he was surprised they tendered him. When the player admits he's getting paid too much for his role you're probably playing too much for that role.

They could've gotten Lorenzen for 4.5 if they'd waited. No, I wouldn't have raised too many alarms if guys who weren't actively hurt when they acquired them for the guy who just hit 2 hole for them in the ALDS got hurt. It's a different situation. At least those guys would've had a chance of being any value at all. DeSclafani was just another in the growing list of horrible injured starting pitcher bets this FO has made in an attempt to get starting pitching for cheap.

My problem is giving up actual, real 2024 talent for an actively injured 5/6 starter that had a better chance of providing 0 value than any value at all. They traded a top of the order hitter and paid $4 million for that "injury plagued 5/6 starter" and that's why I have a problem with it. Signing any of the no name guys you want to throw out is a far better option than trading a legitimate MLB hitter for DeSclafani. 

I'm 100% in agreement with the one good player over three or four replacement level players. It's why I hate this trade so much. They decided to go with DeSclafani, Santana, Farmer, and Topa over Polanco and whoever else they could've brought in for the savings they got from not paying nearly 20 mil for that collection of 4 utterly replaceable players. I strongly dislike the $5-10ish million player collection they go for every year. Give me a 20-30 mil player and young guys over short side of a platoon bats and cheap starting pitchers.

[chpettit19]

10 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?  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. 

"The lack of any other starter moves" was because they got DeSclafani. That is why it's a big deal. They came out and said right after that trade they were moving their offseason forward looking for bats and were done looking for starting pitchers. He was penned into the 5th spot because they were only ever going to bring in 1 MLB starter and they ended up with him. It's why it's a big deal. Because it was an absolutely horrible decision. The fact that the guy they chose to bring in for their 5th starter spot fits into your personal depth spectrum around Brent Headricks should disappoint you, shouldn't it? He was their choice. They had 1 rotation spot open and they filled it with Anthony DeSclafani before immediately announcing they were done with rotation moves. Fans keeping their hopes up for another move, or trying to retroactively act like they were still looking for another move, is ignoring what the Twins were saying and revising history. They told us that was their rotation move. And they've done nothing but confirm that ever since. It was a bad move.

[TwinsDr2021]

16 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I don't get how it's worse because the Twins picked up Polanco's option last year. They got a top 100 prospect and a relief pitcher as opposed to getting nothing. Is your assertation that the Twins were lucky to trade him at all? That never seemed likely, but even if it was, they'd probably have just pivoted to trading Kepler.

 

It looks worse because the FO looks foolish picking up the 10.5 option and swapping it for what they got, keeping Farmer and bringing in Santana. IMO there were better ways to construct the roster for the same or possibly less money. I didn't say they couldn't trade Polanco, but others have said they had only one trade partner in Seattle, and was forced to take on DeSclafani. I don't look at this trade all by it self, I look at it as a whole.

[Major League Ready]

16 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Polanco would've DH'd for this team. Or played 1B with Santana never signed. Or they could've done your situation of moving Julien to 1B some and having Kirilloff and Wallner split LF and DH. I don't buy this idea that there was no place for Polanco to play. The DH spot was, and is, wide open on any team that has Carlos Santana in his age 38 season starting everyday against righties. They picked Santana and DeSclafani over Polanco. It's now turned into Santana over Polanco.

I agree they went and got the best deal they felt they could for Polanco. Disagree that they had 9 guys better than Polanco and that the Polanco angle is overblown. They had all those young guys in the playoffs last year and felt he was good enough to hit 2 hole then. Healthy Buxton coming back is the only real difference outside of Santana and now he doesn't have any spot at all? Jorge Polanco would've hit in the top 5 spots in this Twins order and they got a 32 year old reliever with 1 good year and 2 A ball players in return. I don't think it's overblown to say that trade hurt the 2024 Twins. Maybe Gonzalez breaks out and the Twins "win" the trade in the long run, but I'm not concerned with the long run after coming off an ALDS appearance. I'm concerned with taking an obvious step backwards coming off that ALDS appearance. But I understand and acknowledge that others find more redeeming value in the possible future value of that deal. I'm just not interested in that at this point in their team building cycle.

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.  

[Dman]

7 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Polanco would've DH'd for this team. Or played 1B with Santana never signed. Or they could've done your situation of moving Julien to 1B some and having Kirilloff and Wallner split LF and DH. I don't buy this idea that there was no place for Polanco to play. The DH spot was, and is, wide open on any team that has Carlos Santana in his age 38 season starting everyday against righties. They picked Santana and DeSclafani over Polanco. It's now turned into Santana over Polanco.

I agree they went and got the best deal they felt they could for Polanco. Disagree that they had 9 guys better than Polanco and that the Polanco angle is overblown. They had all those young guys in the playoffs last year and felt he was good enough to hit 2 hole then. Healthy Buxton coming back is the only real difference outside of Santana and now he doesn't have any spot at all? Jorge Polanco would've hit in the top 5 spots in this Twins order and they got a 32 year old reliever with 1 good year and 2 A ball players in return. I don't think it's overblown to say that trade hurt the 2024 Twins. Maybe Gonzalez breaks out and the Twins "win" the trade in the long run, but I'm not concerned with the long run after coming off an ALDS appearance. I'm concerned with taking an obvious step backwards coming off that ALDS appearance. But I understand and acknowledge that others find more redeeming value in the possible future value of that deal. I'm just not interested in that at this point in their team building cycle.

Sure the DH spot would have worked and he could still split time with Jullien in a platoon against lefties as well.  He is a good tough veteran hitter and pretty clutch to boot.  Still I guess I believe his production can be replaced with other players. Santana is a veteran bat as well with a solid eye at the plate.  His OPS is going to be lower than Polanco but he plays good defense and he bats from both sides as well.  Sure your losing ground with the bat there but other players should help make up for it.

I don't agree with this piece that the Twins didn't see DeSclafani as a real piece in the trade.  Like me they might not have expected him to stay healthy the whole season but they had to believe he would be there to help especially to start the season.  The headliner was Topa though.  He isn't going to have 2.61 ERA this year as his FIP and xFIP have him a full run up and maybe more unless his HR suppression stays the same.  Still the Twins needed pen arms and we'll see if he is a one year wonder or not.  Also not thrilled with Gonzalez.  He has a good contact swing but that generally only takes you so far. Without plate discipline it is very hard to stick at the MLB level.  His exit velocities aren't great either.  Not saying he can't make it but for a near top 100 prospect it seems like a pretty big gamble IMO.  I like Bowen, but as of this moment he is a two pitch pitcher in A ball. Not saying he can't improve, but again maybe a very nice lotto ticket not a sure thing by any means.  DeSclafani was supposed to bridge the gap for present value and we now know that won't be happening.  So it definitely tarnishes the trade some IMO as the present value is now diminished.  Still I think the return is strong enough to make it worth it.  Polanco's value just isn't that high.

IMO this team has too many flaws for Polanco to have made much of a difference this year.  The FO seems determined to follow the Cleveland blueprint and rotate the young starters into the rotation this year.  IMO that had to be the plan from the beginning as they made no starting pitching moves of consequence.  Relying on DeSclafani was no solid plan. They wanted Varland in that 5th spot and must have faith in SWR, Headrick and Festa to cover.  They don't want to spend big money on starting pitching so I believe their plan is to develop it. They buffered that decision by beefing up the pen.  Hopefully this doesn't work out like last years depending on the young guys for the pen (Sands, Winder, Henriquez, Moran, Balazovich). That gamble almost sunk the team last year.  There is enough risk taken that I don't think Polanco would have changed the trajectory. This is going to be a live or die on the young starting pitching deal IMO.

 

[chpettit19]

2 minutes ago, Dman said:

Sure the DH spot would have worked and he could still split time with Jullien in a platoon against lefties as well.  He is a good tough veteran hitter and pretty clutch to boot.  Still I guess I believe his production can be replaced with other players. Santana is a veteran bat as well with a solid eye at the plate.  His OPS is going to be lower than Polanco but he plays good defense and he bats from both sides as well.  Sure your losing ground with the bat there but other players should help make up for it.

I don't agree with this piece that the Twins didn't see DeSclafani as a real piece in the trade.  Like me they might not have expected him to stay healthy the whole season but they had to believe he would be there to help especially to start the season.  The headliner was Topa though.  He isn't going to have 2.61 ERA this year as his FIP and xFIP have him a full run up and maybe more unless his HR suppression stays the same.  Still the Twins needed pen arms and we'll see if he is a one year wonder or not.  Also not thrilled with Gonzalez.  He has a good contact swing but that generally only takes you so far. Without plate discipline it is very hard to stick at the MLB level.  His exit velocities aren't great either.  Not saying he can't make it but for a near top 100 prospect it seems like a pretty big gamble IMO.  I like Bowen, but as of this moment he is a two pitch pitcher in A ball. Not saying he can't improve, but again maybe a very nice lotto ticket not a sure thing by any means.  DeSclafani was supposed to bridge the gap for present value and we now know that won't be happening.  So it definitely tarnishes the trade some IMO as the present value is now diminished.  Still I think the return is strong enough to make it worth it.  Polanco's value just isn't that high.

IMO this team has too many flaws for Polanco to have made much of a difference this year.  The FO seems determined to follow the Cleveland blueprint and rotate the young starters into the rotation this year.  IMO that had to be the plan from the beginning as they made no starting pitching moves of consequence.  Relying on DeSclafani was no solid plan. They wanted Varland in that 5th spot and must have faith in SWR, Headrick and Festa to cover.  They don't want to spend big money on starting pitching so I believe their plan is to develop it. They buffered that decision by beefing up the pen.  Hopefully this doesn't work out like last years depending on the young guys for the pen (Sands, Winder, Henriquez, Moran, Balazovich). That gamble almost sunk the team last year.  There is enough risk taken that I don't think Polanco would have changed the trajectory. This is going to be a live or die on the young starting pitching deal IMO.

 

I don't care which side of the plate Santana stands on when righties get him out constantly. He can't hit righties. Polanco can. They worsened their everyday lineup to improve defense at the bottom of the defensive spectrum. I'm not impressed. This team would be better with Polanco. I don't want others to "make up for" Polanco's bat being missing. I want his bat on top of whatever progress the rest of the guys make. I don't think this offense is as good as others do.

I think they got a nice return in terms of value for Polanco. In a vacuum. But when that value comes in the form of a prototypical "volatile year to year" reliever and 2 guys miles away from the bigs when the team is coming off an ALDS appearance I'm just not a fan. If this was after 2021 or 2022, or most of the last 15 years, I'd have a much different stance. 

I agree this team has too many flaws now, but some of them are self-inflicted. Like the one being discussed here. This article is about not lumping DeSclafani in with Paddack and Mahle. But I disagree with it. He should absolutely be lumped in with them, and the reason this team has flaws is because of these horrible gambles that this team continues to make on injured pitchers. This offense would have almost no flaws with Steer, CES, and Polanco in it over Farmer, Margot, and Santana. DeSclafani should absolutely be lumped in with the other injured pitcher acquisitions, and the Twins should absolutely stop taking shots an extra risky pitching acquisitions while giving up legitimate player value in return for it. It's hurting their team, in my opinion.

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

You can think it is a smart to use 4 million of this years salary to stock the minors, I don't not coming off of the year the Twins had last year.

The Twins have 6 picks in the top 100 of this summer's draft. Should they opt out and spend the money on the 2024 team instead?

Your answer should be a resounding NO. It's always a good time to stock the minor leagues with talent. It is the most cost effective way to acquire talent.

[TwinsDr2021]

9 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

The Twins have 6 picks in the top 100 of this summer's draft. Should they opt out and spend the money on the 2024 team instead?

Your answer should be a resounding NO. It's always a good time to stock the minor leagues with talent. It is the most cost effective way to acquire talent.

That is changing the argument completely, the Twins never said the reason to cut payroll was because they needed money to sign draft picks next year or to replenish the minors.

The twins traded Polanco and his 10.5 for Topa, DeSclafani, and Santana, which with my math those three make exactly 10.5. I would have preferred not picking up Polanco and using 10.5 on others players, or kept Polanco and maybe trading him this year for prospects and possibly health. IMO the FO thought they could sign Polanco and Farmer and trade Polanco for better than they got, and when they couldn't took the best deal they could get, and looking at the deal all by it self, wasn't a bad deal, but when that is all they could get it left them signing Santana and without a starting pitcher they imagined they could get.

[USAFChief]

2 hours ago, laloesch said:

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.

Maybe read my post again. You seem to agree with it.

[USAFChief]

54 minutes 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.  

LOL.

Following this logic, we should trade Ryan, Lopez, Ober, Lewis, Julien, and Buxton, too. 

That'd really set up the future. 

[TwinsDr2021]

54 minutes 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.  

So picking up a guys for 10.5 million option to trade him two months later for a relief pitcher and two minors is a good strategy for building a team's future, while hurting the current years team? That is an interesting philosophy.

[MTV]

The Twins built a bullpen in the off-season that could have several depth pieces step up if need be and a lot of lottery ticket relievers get time in AAA and make a move to the majors if they did well enough.

My issue is they didn’t do that with the rotation. Lopez-Ryan-Ober were givens, but Paddack and Varland both had their fair share of concerns, and the depth chart behind them is very concerning. Your depth behind Varland is David Festa, who could do well but isn’t on the 40-Man roster and has little experience at AAA, Simeon Woods-Richardson who is still young and trying to figure out AAA, and Brent Headrick, who didn’t do great as a reliever at the majors last year; 3 guys you don’t have enough faith in to hold the 5th starter role for half a season if need-be like Varland did last year.

They should’ve signed Cleavinger or Lorenzen recently, a 5th arm for less than $5 million wouldn’t have hurt your budget constrictions that much, and given you another player who could give meaningful innings. Let’s hope these prospects step up, and that we can get a valuable starter at the deadline.

[DJL44]

10 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

The Twins never said the reason to cut payroll was because they needed money to sign draft picks next year or to replenish the minors.

No, they said it was because they didn't have a TV deal and then they got a TV deal and still didn't spend any of the money from the TV deal. This could have something to do with their management team consistently negotiating the worst local TV deal in MLB and their expectations that they will negotiate another bad TV deal next summer.

They traded Polanco because they had a surplus of second basemen and he could bring back value in a trade. He didn't bring back as much as they hoped because DeSclafani never even threw a pitch for the Twins but they still got (a lot) more value than non-tendering him. I would have rather they reloaded like the Arizona Diamondbacks and tried for a championship. Instead, we got a change in management philosophy that wants them to generate more profit. I would not be surprised to see Kepler and Vazquez dealt at the deadline as they continue to shrink the payroll.

[gunnarthor]

I didn't think much of Desclafani when we made the trade - "They got a top 100 prospect, a potentially useful bullpen arm, and junk for Polanco while saving money. This feels (both good and bad) like a pretty Twinsy-trade. I like that it frees up space. The Twins pitching plan seems to be throw stuff at wall, see what sticks and this gives them some more stuff to throw."

Seems like he won't stick. Bummer for him he got hurt. But the bigger issue  seems to be this FO has traded for a number of injured pitchers from Day one. Remember Sam Dyson? I would hope they stop doing this but they haven't seemed to learn anything yet.

 

[MGM4706]

The problem with your scenario is you don't mention they did this deal at the same time they let Gray and Maeda go. So they were counting on the oft-injured acquisition to replace them. He was NOT just a throw-jn as you portrayed. And the TV contract got done with a small increase so that was a smokescreen to cut payroll when we all knew it would get done!! Twins are in trouble on the Pitching side.  They now need to win 7-6 games.

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, USAFChief said:

LOL.

Following this logic, we should trade Ryan, Lopez, Ober, Lewis, Julien, and Buxton, too. 

That'd really set up the future. 

If you think trading away proven pitchers and our best young player is the same as trading away a player who most certainly would have been a bench player, I don't know what to tell you.  Did you even hear/see a single baseball reporter that thought moving Polanco was a bad idea?  

[Jocko87]

3 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

"The lack of any other starter moves" was because they got DeSclafani. That is why it's a big deal. They came out and said right after that trade they were moving their offseason forward looking for bats and were done looking for starting pitchers. He was penned into the 5th spot because they were only ever going to bring in 1 MLB starter and they ended up with him. It's why it's a big deal. Because it was an absolutely horrible decision. The fact that the guy they chose to bring in for their 5th starter spot fits into your personal depth spectrum around Brent Headricks should disappoint you, shouldn't it? He was their choice. They had 1 rotation spot open and they filled it with Anthony DeSclafani before immediately announcing they were done with rotation moves. Fans keeping their hopes up for another move, or trying to retroactively act like they were still looking for another move, is ignoring what the Twins were saying and revising history. They told us that was their rotation move. And they've done nothing but confirm that ever since. It was a bad move.

Rather than a long post explaining revisionist history and how it works, I've highlighted a few things I'm going to need you to support with some links.  That's right, I'm going to be source? guy.

This post particularly got my attention as none of these statements look like anything like I've ever heard Falvey say, what with his mastery of media deflection.  He, and the organization are particularity good at never saying anything so firm and brash as how you've presented.  That's part of why Joe got so much attention just saying no.

So I did a really dumb thing.  Research.  I know, I know, what in the world can that doing something so stupid bring to an internet #%$&ing contest?  Not only could I not find the statements you've claimed, I found quite the opposite as I would have expected from Falvey.  Here's a good one pre-disco injury (publicly known anyway), relevant part at 1:28.

https://kstp.com/minnesota-sports/twins-derek-falvey-joe-schmit-spring-training-interview/

Falvey etal just don't say things like you've presented here.  We all know that as I type it out loud but its quite easy for disingenuous interpretations to be posted and accepted as fact as folks scroll by.  I completely understand being upset about the Twins not making a single high impact pitching move this offseason but that doesn't justify putting words in peoples mouths. 

The other takeaway from my reading is that the Twins didn't make a single high impact pitching move all year.  This trade was not it, but absent a big move, the human condition will insert the next best move in that place.  Re-reading everything I could find from the trade react, Disco was very lowly regarded in all serious discussions.  Whole lotta compete for a 5th spot, maybe a bullpen piece.  Three teams teamed up to get rid of an aardvark of a contract. Certainly not the headliner and as I said, in the Brent Headrick range.  My expectations were fulfilled, mostly because I was realistic in setting them.  Hoped to get some quality innings but won't.  Shucks.

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Jocko87 said:

Rather than a long post explaining revisionist history and how it works, I've highlighted a few things I'm going to need you to support with some links.  That's right, I'm going to be source? guy.

This post particularly got my attention as none of these statements look like anything like I've ever heard Falvey say, what with his mastery of media deflection.  He, and the organization are particularity good at never saying anything so firm and brash as how you've presented.  That's part of why Joe got so much attention just saying no.

So I did a really dumb thing.  Research.  I know, I know, what in the world can that doing something so stupid bring to an internet #%$&ing contest?  Not only could I not find the statements you've claimed, I found quite the opposite as I would have expected from Falvey.  Here's a good one pre-disco injury (publicly known anyway), relevant part at 1:28.

https://kstp.com/minnesota-sports/twins-derek-falvey-joe-schmit-spring-training-interview/

Falvey etal just don't say things like you've presented here.  We all know that as I type it out loud but its quite easy for disingenuous interpretations to be posted and accepted as fact as folks scroll by.  I completely understand being upset about the Twins not making a single high impact pitching move this offseason but that doesn't justify putting words in peoples mouths. 

The other takeaway from my reading is that the Twins didn't make a single high impact pitching move all year.  This trade was not it, but absent a big move, the human condition will insert the next best move in that place.  Re-reading everything I could find from the trade react, Disco was very lowly regarded in all serious discussions.  Whole lotta compete for a 5th spot, maybe a bullpen piece.  Three teams teamed up to get rid of an aardvark of a contract. Certainly not the headliner and as I said, in the Brent Headrick range.  My expectations were fulfilled, mostly because I was realistic in setting them.  Hoped to get some quality innings but won't.  Shucks.

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.

[Riverbrian]

59 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

If you think trading away proven pitchers and our best young player is the same as trading away a player who most certainly would have been a bench players, I don't know what to tell you.  Did you even hear/see a single baseball reporter that thought moving Polanco was a bad idea?  

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. 

[laloesch]

4 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Maybe read my post again. You seem to agree with it.

Mind games  😁

[laloesch]

When Ren walks in the door after work from the episode "Ren the Hermit" reminds me of this conversation about Deslafani.    

 

[USAFChief]

9 minutes 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. 

We had Manny Margot at DH in the first game of the season, yet people think there wasn't room for Jorge Polanco.

[Major League Ready]

1 hour 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. 

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?

There is also the issue of having room on the roster for Brooks Lee.