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

[Battle ur tail off]

On 4/2/2024 at 12:25 PM, 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 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?  

He wasn't a bench player! Polanco was the Twins most professional hitter. He's a starter and a borderline all-star when healthy. I get it, Julien is going to take over that spot and Polanco is getting older, but he is a top of the order hitter type, not some bench guy only seeing time every once in awhile. 

[USAFChief]

3 minutes ago, Battle ur tail off said:

He wasn't a bench player! Polanco was the Twins most professional hitter. He's a starter and a borderline all-star when healthy. I get it, Julien is going to take over that spot and Polanco is getting older, but he is a top of the order hitter type, not some bench guy only seeing time every once in awhile. 

He'd look a lot better at 1st base than Carlos Santanarosannadanna. Or at DH over Manny Margot.

I mean, if you're getting nothing very useful back for him, just keep him.

 

 

[Battle ur tail off]

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 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.

How about trading for some prospects that can pitch once, rather than just piling up outfielder after outfielder after outfielder...

[Jocko87]

2 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

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.

You coulda just sat and watched, but if you want in, I'm your huckleberry.  Feel free to tag me next time.

The specific statements that @chpettit19 made that I challenged are as follows.

They came out and said...were done looking for starting pitchers.

they were only ever going to bring in 1 MLB starter

announcing they were done with rotation moves.

They told us that was their rotation move.

There is no evidence that anyone affiliated with the Twins has said anything close to these statements.  At best, the interpretations of the "I think our focus might turn more to the position player route"  with think and might doing heavy lifting would indicate they thought the Buxton insurance/RH bat is a higher priority at that time but certainly doesn't support these declarative statements.  Pettit and I will disagree on that, and that's fine.  I'm not doing this to convince him, I'm fighting against the setting of a narrative for the benefit of others.

It's the same reason I rail against the forced "self-imposed" modifier that is being inserted in every article, after a paragraph is forced in about payroll.  Many writers, here and other sites, are hell-bent on driving the self imposed narrative for whatever reason.  In a league where all payroll limitations are self-imposed, forcing that phase down our throats is nothing but pushing a narrative.  It doesn't add anything to a discussion.

Worst case, I take a little flak to help someone not take these inaccuracies forward as facts.  Meh, do your worst.

[Battle ur tail off]

4 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

He'd look a lot better at 1st base than Carlos Santanarosannadanna. Or at DH over Manny Margot.

I mean, if you're getting nothing very useful back for him, just keep him.

 

 

Lewis, Julien, Polanco. 

That is how it went as far as productive hitters. Just silly that we'd call a guy that can hit that well and played a more than adequate 2B(much better than Julien) a bench player. 

PS Lee is hurt and also unknown. And like I said in another post, if you are trading some like Polanco and not gonna add pitching any other way, how about going after some pitching prospects that profile like the outfielder did instead of having 800 outfielders and no starting pitching prospects...

[chpettit19]

13 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

You coulda just sat and watched, but if you want in, I'm your huckleberry.  Feel free to tag me next time.

The specific statements that @chpettit19 made that I challenged are as follows.

They came out and said...were done looking for starting pitchers.

they were only ever going to bring in 1 MLB starter

announcing they were done with rotation moves.

They told us that was their rotation move.

There is no evidence that anyone affiliated with the Twins has said anything close to these statements.  At best, the interpretations of the "I think our focus might turn more to the position player route"  with think and might doing heavy lifting would indicate they thought the Buxton insurance/RH bat is a higher priority at that time but certainly doesn't support these declarative statements.  Pettit and I will disagree on that, and that's fine.  I'm not doing this to convince him, I'm fighting against the setting of a narrative for the benefit of others.

It's the same reason I rail against the forced "self-imposed" modifier that is being inserted in every article, after a paragraph is forced in about payroll.  Many writers, here and other sites, are hell-bent on driving the self imposed narrative for whatever reason.  In a league where all payroll limitations are self-imposed, forcing that phase down our throats is nothing but pushing a narrative.  It doesn't add anything to a discussion.

Worst case, I take a little flak to help someone not take these inaccuracies forward as facts.  Meh, do your worst.

Again I ask, do you have any sources (we know you love sources) that show the Twins continued to look for any starting pitchers after they acquired DeSclafani? Do you have any sources that would suggest they were ever going to bring in more than 1 MLB starter to fill their 1 MLB rotation opening? I gave you quotes from Falvey stating they were moving on to the position player side.

Look, you tried to "well technically" me and asked for sources. I've provided them. He said they were shifting to the position player side and they didn't bring in anymore starting pitchers, and there weren't even rumors (that I'm aware of, feel free to prove me wrong, though) that they were talking with any other starting pitcher free agents or teams about trading for starting pitchers in any real way. You want to scold me because you think I spoke in too concrete of terms. But the facts are still that they acquired 1 major league starting pitcher to fill their 1 major league rotation hole, the head of the baseball operations department then immediately stated that they were turning their attention to the position player side, and, just like Falvey suggested, they didn't bring in any other major leaguer starting pitching nor were they rumored to be looking into it.

If it makes you feel better I'll admit my statements were stronger than Falvey's. Congrats. Yet each and every one of those statements are correct so I'm not sure why you're still arguing this. They weren't "inaccuracies" and I've shown that. I'm not "setting a narrative." I've provided you with the transactions, roster situation, and quotes. I'm sorry you don't like the facts, but that's what they are. It's time for us to move on and not derail this thread, though. So give whatever final speech you feel necessary about me saying facts stronger than you'd like me to, but your fight for the benefit of others is going to have to find a more appropriate location after that.

[rv78]

6 hours 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.   
 

The only reason why it would be a problem executing, is by not making it a priority. Had they gone into the off-season with the intention of trading both Polanco and Kepler for prospects to then use the payroll saved from those 2 contracts plus the wasted money they spent on Santana and Margot and any other floor player they thought they needed, to buy a Top Free Agent Pitcher would have worked 100%. They knew they had the Santana and Margot money already. If Kepler and Polanco are as good as most of you think they are, there should and could have been serious takers early in the off-season knowing all it would take is a prospect or two to get them. This FO looks through a narrow lens, thinking there is only one way to do things and going after injured pitchers has become the norm, and it's wrong. Why is waiting to see what everyone else does first in the off-season, best? IMO it puts you behind, not in control, and instead, reactionary, which leads to poor decisions, because it becomes your only option.... like trading for injured pitchers because we've already blown payroll on more floor type players and the good Free Agent pitchers are now gone. 

[DJL44]

42 minutes ago, rv78 said:

If Kepler and Polanco are as good as most of you think they are, there should and could have been serious takers early in the off-season knowing all it would take is a prospect or two to get them.

Half the league has a starter better than or equal to either of those two. One third of the league isn't trying to win this year. That leaves about 5 teams to try to match up with. A couple of those teams (Detroit and Cleveland) are in the same division. If the Twins trade Kepler they would immediately be in the "trying to win without an outfielder better than Kepler" category.

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, Battle ur tail off said:

He wasn't a bench player! Polanco was the Twins most professional hitter. He's a starter and a borderline all-star when healthy. I get it, Julien is going to take over that spot and Polanco is getting older, but he is a top of the order hitter type, not some bench guy only seeing time every once in awhile. 

Nobody said he wouldn't get used.  The twins use all their bench play frequently.  I have asked every person taking this stance to tell me which player he starts in place of.  If he is not a starter, he is a bench player and he certainly is not starting over Julien or Lewis.  Of course, Lewis will be out for a while hurt but this conversation started before he was hurt.  He is not even starting over Kirilloff at 1B.  So, don't ignore the question like everyone else and just tell where he starts.   

BTW ... If they wanted a FT DH Martinez was a much better solution.

[Major League Ready]

4 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

I have never suggested adding another player at 30M. 

Since Correa is getting paid $36M, a $24M player would make it 60 between them.  Where are you getting an impact player for less?  Certainly not a pitcher which is their greatest need.  If you were to say Hoskins I would say I was on that train. 

This still ignores citing the core point which was examples of teams in the bottom half of revenue winning 90 games with two expensive free agents on their roster.  I would have to look through all of my data but I can't think of a team with even one premium free agent.  

I will drop it down to $50M.  Can you give me an example of a low revenue team that spent $50M on two free agents that contributed to winning 90 games?  Would you concede this assumption needs to be examined if you can't come up with a few examples?

[Battle ur tail off]

25 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Nobody said he wouldn't get used.  The twins use all their bench play frequently.  I have asked every person taking this stance to tell me which player he starts in place of.  If he is not a starter, he is a bench player and he certainly is not starting over Julien or Lewis.  Of course, Lewis will be out for a while hurt but this conversation started before he was hurt.  He is not even starting over Kirilloff at 1B.  So, don't ignore the question like everyone else and just tell where he starts.   

BTW ... If they wanted a FT DH Martinez was a much better solution.

2B and move Julien to 1B. Why do I want Kiriloff at 1B? He is terrible there. Absolutely brutal and cost us at least 1 if not 2 games playing there in the playoffs last year. DH or RF for him. Between Polanco, Julien, Kiriloff, Kepler and Wallner you have 1B, DH, 2B, RF/LF. None are plus fielders except Kep.

Also would have gotten some 3B starts. Probably some at SS as well. 

It's fine. It's over. I just don't understand why if you moved him, you didn't try to get pitching prospects back? We keep trading for corner outfield prospects all the time. Quite literally the easiest spot on the diamond to replace via cheap FA every year.

[Riverbrian]

12 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Since Correa is getting paid $36M, a $24M player would make it 60 between them.  Where are you getting an impact player for less?  Certainly not a pitcher which is their greatest need.  If you were to say Hoskins I would say I was on that train. 

This still ignores citing the core point which was examples of teams in the bottom half of revenue winning 90 games with two expensive free agents on their roster.  I would have to look through all of my data but I can't think of a team with even one premium free agent.  

I will drop it down to $50M.  Can you give me an example of a low revenue team that spent $50M on two free agents that contributed to winning 90 games?  Would you concede this assumption needs to be examined if you can't come up with a few examples?

Why do I have to do that? I'm 100 miles from that location.  

I'm saying that I wouldn't have traded Polanco and I wouldn't have traded him based on 2024 contention context. 

Are you asking me to add Correa and Polanco together. Add 10.5 to Correa's 33.333.333 = 43,833,333

To answer your question... I'm not going to do a ton of research on it but the 2022 Padres won 89 games and spent over 60 million on two players. But... I want to be clear. I only did that at your request and why you are requesting it of ME... I really don't know. 

And Yes... If I had my wish... Hoskins would have been the addition that tripped my trigger. 

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

Why do I have to do that? I'm 100 miles from that location.  

I'm saying that I wouldn't have traded Polanco and I wouldn't have traded him based on 2024 contention context. 

Are you asking me to add Correa and Polanco together. Add 10.5 to Correa's 33.333.333 = 43,833,333

To answer your question... I'm not going to do a ton of research on it but the 2022 Padres won 89 games and spent over 60 million on two players. But... I want to be clear. I only did that at your request and why you are requesting it of ME... I really don't know. 

And Yes... If I had my wish... Hoskins would have been the addition that tripped my trigger. 

No.  Polanco has nothing to do with this part of the equation.  You and others have said you would prefer one expensive free agent to signing multiple less expensive free agents which assumes this is a more effective way of building a winner.  History does not support that assumption.  So, sorry, I did not mean to single you.  I have invited everyone and anyone to give actual examples of success (defined as 90 wins) where these strategies people insist have been employed.   Everyone just ignores the idea of actually citing an example.

The 2022 Padres were an extreme anomaly where a dying man spent far more than any other team with this level of revenue has historically and they rectified that situation in a hurry.  I can't come up with a single example.  I asked you if the fact this strategy has never worked causes you to question the assumption because you have proven to be very reasonable where others simply refuse to consider their assumption might be flawed.   

[rv78]

3 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Half the league has a starter better than or equal to either of those two. One third of the league isn't trying to win this year. That leaves about 5 teams to try to match up with. A couple of those teams (Detroit and Cleveland) are in the same division. If the Twins trade Kepler they would immediately be in the "trying to win without an outfielder better than Kepler" category.

LOL! Your math isn't very good. One third of the league equals 10 teams not 5. And, Kepler is one of the most over-rated outfielders in the game. He comes with a career .236 BA and has 1.5 seasons out of 9 that can be considered "good". Trying to win with an outfielder better than Kepler wouldn't be difficult. In fact, if the young players would get a chance to play everyday like him, it wouldn't take much to be better.

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, Battle ur tail off said:

2B and move Julien to 1B. Why do I want Kiriloff at 1B? He is terrible there. Absolutely brutal and cost us at least 1 if not 2 games playing there in the playoffs last year. DH or RF for him. Between Polanco, Julien, Kiriloff, Kepler and Wallner you have 1B, DH, 2B, RF/LF. None are plus fielders except Kep.

Also would have gotten some 3B starts. Probably some at SS as well. 

It's fine. It's over. I just don't understand why if you moved him, you didn't try to get pitching prospects back? We keep trading for corner outfield prospects all the time. Quite literally the easiest spot on the diamond to replace via cheap FA every year.

Hard to say if Polanco or Julien would be better than Kirilloff defensively at 1B.  I doubt it would make enough of a difference to matter.  Kirilloff was slightly better offensively last year and is off to a much better start than Polanco.  It makes no sense to have Polano start over Kirilloff at 1B when Kirilloff is cheaper, still has upside, and you get a return on trading Polanco and he is $10M cheaper. 

[Riverbrian]

11 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

No.  Polanco has nothing to do with this part of the equation.  You and others have said you would prefer one expensive free agent to signing multiple less expensive free agents which assumes this is a more effective way of building a winner.  History does not support that assumption.  So, sorry, I did not mean to single you.  I have invited everyone and anyone to give actual examples of success (defined as 90 wins) where these strategies people insist have been employed.   Everyone just ignores the idea of actually citing an example.

The 2022 Padres were an extreme anomaly where a dying man spent far more than any other team with this level of revenue has historically and they rectified that situation in a hurry.  I can't come up with a single example.  I asked you if the fact this strategy has never worked causes you to question the assumption because you have proven to be very reasonable where others simply refuse to consider their assumption might be flawed.   

This is your movie script... not mine. 

You are dragging me into this room and I'm hoping that others are noticing that it's not my room and my feet are up on the door frame pushing back. This is a kidnapping. 

But Ok... since I'm here against my will. 

Let me ask you a question. How many 57 Chevy's are under the water in Lake of the Woods?

It's a ridiculous question I know but then again so is yours.

Let's ignore the FACT that I have consistently recognized that teams have a budget and consistently not lost my mind over team payroll or big free agents... yet I'm still getting shoved into this room.  

You are arbitrarily defining the parameters of the question you seek. A question that has nothing to do with my point if I haven't made myself clear. 

90 Wins is your arbitrary line. 

2 players is your arbitrary line.

50m and 60m are your arbitrary lines.

Equal or Less Revenue than the Twins is your arbitrary line. Revenue isn't reported and a moving target YOY but we both know the teams you are talking about... and these teams typically are not big players in the big contract world so finding a single team successful OR NOT however subjectively defined is going to pretty unicorn like. 

Regardless of the ridiculousness of the question and the usage of me as the vehicle you drive off this cliff. I still answered the question... You asked for "a team".

I listed the 2022 Padres 89 wins (not 90) and you reply with "extreme anomaly". You asked for "A team". There ya go. 

The 2023 Twins spent 48.5M on Correa and Buxton and won 87 games. Doesn't meet your parameters but close. 

However...  I want to be clear. I have never stood up on this site and complained about payroll. I don't belong in this room. 

[DJL44]

13 hours ago, rv78 said:

LOL! Your math isn't very good. One third of the league equals 10 teams not 5. 

1/2 + 1/3 = 5/6. That leaves 1/6 of the teams. 1/6*30 = 5.

My math is fine. Your reading comprehension is not.

[Woof Bronzer]

19 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

You coulda just sat and watched, but if you want in, I'm your huckleberry.  Feel free to tag me next time.

The specific statements that @chpettit19 made that I challenged are as follows.

They came out and said...were done looking for starting pitchers.

they were only ever going to bring in 1 MLB starter

announcing they were done with rotation moves.

They told us that was their rotation move.

There is no evidence that anyone affiliated with the Twins has said anything close to these statements.  At best, the interpretations of the "I think our focus might turn more to the position player route"  with think and might doing heavy lifting would indicate they thought the Buxton insurance/RH bat is a higher priority at that time but certainly doesn't support these declarative statements.  Pettit and I will disagree on that, and that's fine.  I'm not doing this to convince him, I'm fighting against the setting of a narrative for the benefit of others.

It's the same reason I rail against the forced "self-imposed" modifier that is being inserted in every article, after a paragraph is forced in about payroll.  Many writers, here and other sites, are hell-bent on driving the self imposed narrative for whatever reason.  In a league where all payroll limitations are self-imposed, forcing that phase down our throats is nothing but pushing a narrative.  It doesn't add anything to a discussion.

Worst case, I take a little flak to help someone not take these inaccuracies forward as facts.  Meh, do your worst.

Yes, Mr. Dunning-Kruger, I'm going to go out on the limb and suggest that Falvey saying "I think our focus might turn more to the position player route", coupled with the actual fact that the Twins did not pursue or sign another starter, meant they were done looking for starters.  

Your take seems to be that Falvey lied and the Twins were actively pursuing a starter and failed.  Which would make Falvey really incompetent, and a liar to boot.  Interesting take.  

[USAFChief]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

1/2 + 1/3 = 5/6. That leaves 1/6 of the teams. 1/6*30 = 5.

My math is fine. Your reading comprehension is not.

Your math is fine, the problem is you pulled it from thin air.

[Cris E]

Seattle was trying to cut salary too, so we had to take DeScalfani as a throw-in to balance the money. The Mariners took on 10.5 and sent back 12 + 1.25 + $4m cash from SFG and $4m cash of their own. The net was them paying $2m plus a couple prospects for a guy to be a big part of their offense. Falvey did not act alone, and Seattle's position has to be counted as well.

Viewed that way it really looks like no one in any of the three organizations Decsalfani's been with in the past two months believed he was a viable MLB starter because of his terrible health record, and now they are each paying a third of his salary to balance various trades over the winter.

 

[USAFChief]

13 minutes ago, Cris E said:

Seattle was trying to cut salary too, so we had to take DeScalfani as a throw-in to balance the money. The Mariners took on 10.5 and sent back 12 + 1.25 + $4m cash from SFG and $4m cash of their own. The net was them paying $2m plus a couple prospects for a guy to be a big part of their offense. Falvey did not act alone, and Seattle's position has to be counted as well.

Viewed that way it really looks like no one in any of the three organizations Decsalfani's been with in the past two months believed he was a viable MLB starter because of his terrible health record, and now they are each paying a third of his salary to balance various trades over the winter.

 

Seattle was trying to cut payroll by adding payroll?

Seattle was trying to add an infielder they'd long been interested in.

The Twins were trying  to add a starter. 

The rest is filler.

 

[Cris E]

Also, many of the trades made the past two years were done as a direct response to the horrible lessons of 2022.  Since that year Falvey et al always include a lot of "floor" guys on the roster to match up with any place we might be counting on the young or infirm to perform.

Margot is here as Buxton's caddy. Santana is here in case Kirrilloff didn't step up this year.  Descalfani was here in case Louie and SWR and Festa fell down. Farmer was resigned in case Correa breaks. They are still hoping Martin can be a big league CF, that Lee can step into an MLB infield job soon, that Lewis stays healthy and AK hits and Larnach figures things out and Wallner doesn't regress too badly, but they put in a floor beneath the kids in case good things don't happen. 

Margot is not here as a DH, though he played a game there. Santana and Kirilloff will swap around a lot as things settle out. Descalfani only got included on the roster because of the options situation, not because he was expected to hold the job.  Looked at through the lens of larger roster philosophy rather than simplistic rotissarie games these usually make sense and you can tell when they reached for A Guy and when they were trying for something else. Mahle was A Guy and it didn't work. DeScalfani was not and the payroll is doing what they expected even if the pitching is not.

[Cris E]

@USAFChief  If there's no market to trade Polo for a good starting pitcher then the rest is not filler, it's what is available. Bullpen arms and prospects have value and when that's all that's on the shelves and you have to trade then you get the best deal possible.  Polanco was great for MN, but the market for $10.5m oft-injured 2B with declining range is not good. In this trade they filled other needs and stacked some financial shenanigans with a flyer on a SP at the back end to balance the money.

To repeat: Descalfani has not been good since he signed that large contract after 2021. The Giants' rotation was in tatters when they moved him, the Mariners had him penciled in for long relief and then he came here with no expectation of anything more than fighting for a #5 spot. He's just another bit of rag picking, not a hopeful, future-looking acquisition like Paddack or Mahle.

 

[Jocko87]

2 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Yes, Mr. Dunning-Kruger, I'm going to go out on the limb and suggest that Falvey saying "I think our focus might turn more to the position player route", coupled with the actual fact that the Twins did not pursue or sign another starter, meant they were done looking for starters.  

Your take seems to be that Falvey lied and the Twins were actively pursuing a starter and failed.  Which would make Falvey really incompetent, and a liar to boot.  Interesting take.  

Careful with your fancy psychology terms, if a moderator bothers to look them up up you'll be suspended until the All-Star break.  That blows through the terms of service with the tailpipe on fire.  If you truly knew anything about such terms you would know the folly, or malpractice, of using them in internet conversations.  It's called the Goldwater rule, and you should know it if you know these other terms.

When the whole internet has decided what happened in a highly published court case, and the verdict stuns everyone, which side do you find yourself on?  I've got good idea but I dare not assume.  The reason for that is that words matter.  They have specific definitions, regardless of what the internets say.  It a different context or setting, what @chpettit19 said would be libelous.  This being a message board, I gave him a gentle pushback with hopes he would see the error of his certainty but here we are.  Again.

Based on your stated interpretation of my take, which you would have to manufacture from thin air, I'm running up a hill here.  My working assumption, for which there is no way to prove, is that Falvey is actively pursuing a starting pitcher every single day of the week.  I would bet significant amounts that the very day he made that quote he also made calls on starting pitching.  I would bet that he made a call or had an internal meeting about acquiring starting pitching today and will think about it again tomorrow.  Not one word of that quote says that he is not still looking for starters.

That's the Occam's razor explanation.  To think Falvey would ever say something like was claimed, considering all we know about him, might be a complexity or confirmation bias.

[chpettit19]

20 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Nobody said he wouldn't get used.  The twins use all their bench play frequently.  I have asked every person taking this stance to tell me which player he starts in place of.  If he is not a starter, he is a bench player and he certainly is not starting over Julien or Lewis.  Of course, Lewis will be out for a while hurt but this conversation started before he was hurt.  He is not even starting over Kirilloff at 1B.  So, don't ignore the question like everyone else and just tell where he starts.   

BTW ... If they wanted a FT DH Martinez was a much better solution.

Don't claim everyone else ignores that question. That question has been answered many times, you just don't like the answer. Jorge Polanco wouldn't be the fulltime DH. He'd cycle through the DH spot with Julien, Lewis, Kirilloff, and every other player on the roster. You know, like they already do. But if you want a concrete answer, again, on who Polanco would start over the answer is still Carlos Santana. Stop claiming people haven't answered your question and just admit that you don't like the answer. When Carlos Santana is starting everyday against righties (which he is) you have a very clear and obvious answer to the question. Jorge Polanco would start over Carlos Santana. Whether it be at 1B or DH with Kirilloff at 1B or at 2B with Julien at 1B and Kirilloff at DH or at 2B with Julien at DH and Kirilloff at 1B. Look, I just provided you 3 solutions. Jorge Polanco would not be a bench player by any definition and would start everyday for this team.

[jorgenswest]

I am having a hard time caring about the motivation for the deal here and the back and forth.

Did anyone believe then that this 2024 team was better as a result of the trade? I didn’t and it was my comment on the trade. Isn’t that what matters?

I hope my beliefs are proven wrong by Topa pitching all star worthy relief.

[chpettit19]

2 hours ago, Cris E said:

Seattle was trying to cut salary too, so we had to take DeScalfani as a throw-in to balance the money. The Mariners took on 10.5 and sent back 12 + 1.25 + $4m cash from SFG and $4m cash of their own. The net was them paying $2m plus a couple prospects for a guy to be a big part of their offense. Falvey did not act alone, and Seattle's position has to be counted as well.

Viewed that way it really looks like no one in any of the three organizations Decsalfani's been with in the past two months believed he was a viable MLB starter because of his terrible health record, and now they are each paying a third of his salary to balance various trades over the winter.

 

The Twins didn't believe he was a viable MLB starter yet they said he was a viable starter and didn't attempt to bring in any other major league starters? That doesn't track. If the Twins didn't think he was a viable starter why didn't they bring in Michael Lorenzen? Or Mike Clevinger? The situation actually points directly to the Twins believing he was a viable starter like they said they believed and acted like they believed.

Not to mention that in your very next comment you mention that "Descalfani was here in case Louie and SWR and Festa fell down" which would suggest that they thought he was a viable starter. You know, since he couldn't go to AAA like everyone else you named.

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Cris E said:

@USAFChief  If there's no market to trade Polo for a good starting pitcher then the rest is not filler, it's what is available. Bullpen arms and prospects have value and when that's all that's on the shelves and you have to trade then you get the best deal possible.  Polanco was great for MN, but the market for $10.5m oft-injured 2B with declining range is not good. In this trade they filled other needs and stacked some financial shenanigans with a flyer on a SP at the back end to balance the money.

To repeat: Descalfani has not been good since he signed that large contract after 2021. The Giants' rotation was in tatters when they moved him, the Mariners had him penciled in for long relief and then he came here with no expectation of anything more than fighting for a #5 spot. He's just another bit of rag picking, not a hopeful, future-looking acquisition like Paddack or Mahle.

 

It's such a terrible market that they got a top 100 prospect for him? Come on. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Polanco had no value yet he returned value. They didn't have to trade him. They chose to trade him because, in their words, they were getting help for the present and the future. Only the present "help" included an injured starting pitcher that you, and many others, are now suggesting they didn't really want in the first place even though that's a direct contradiction to their words and actions.

[Riverbrian]

The Mariners will pay Polanco 10.5 million dollars. Plus 12 million or 750K buyout next year. 

The Mariners will also pay 8 million dollars to the Twins. 

That's 18.5 Million taken from their budget to acquire Polanco. Plus a top 100 Prospect and another prospect along with Desclafini and Topa. 

The Mariners do shave 4 million off the books with what the Twins take on for Desclafini and 1.25 for Topa for a total of 5.25. 

Subtract 5.25 from the 18.5 and the Mariners added 13.25 Million to their 2024 payroll, gave up a bullpen arm, a top 100 prospect and another prospect.  

All of this to acquire Polanco and get rid of Desclafini. 

Would the Mariners spend all of that for a bench player. Would the Twins dream of asking another team to give up that for a bench player. When you consider the prices for quality starting pitching does any of the numbers above suggest that Desclafini is actually quality. 

The Mariners took on a lot. The Twins probably won this trade with the inclusion of Gabriel Gonzales but this does not improve the Twins in 2024.

 

[USAFChief]

2 hours ago, Cris E said:

@USAFChief  If there's no market to trade Polo for a good starting pitcher then the rest is not filler, it's what is available. Bullpen arms and prospects have value and when that's all that's on the shelves and you have to trade then you get the best deal possible.  Polanco was great for MN, but the market for $10.5m oft-injured 2B with declining range is not good. In this trade they filled other needs and stacked some financial shenanigans with a flyer on a SP at the back end to balance the money.

To repeat: Descalfani has not been good since he signed that large contract after 2021. The Giants' rotation was in tatters when they moved him, the Mariners had him penciled in for long relief and then he came here with no expectation of anything more than fighting for a #5 spot. He's just another bit of rag picking, not a hopeful, future-looking acquisition like Paddack or Mahle.

 

At the risk of beating this horse further into the ground...

Your contention is the Twins--in contrast to their stated goals and obvious needs--didn't add any starting pitching this past winter. With the one trade they made. Do I have that correct?