Reviewing the Jorge Polanco Trade

[bighat]

9 hours ago, Danchat said:

This has been a lose-lose trade, as both sides have to be very disappointed with what they've received. It is apparent the Twins picked the right time to trade Polanco, but as one who liked the trade initially, that was given Topa would actually pitch and Gonzalez's stock wouldn't immediately plummet (and I was expecting a follow-up trade a la the Garver/IKF trade). And even though the trade freed up some money to spend, that wasn't exactly spent on quality additions.

Agreed. Those saying the Twins "won" this trade don't really mean that. What they mean is, that the Twins didn't lose as badly. 

The Twins and Mariners basically went to Vegas together hoping to have a fun trip. Seattle got drunk, lost $5000 bucks and then fell into the hotel pool at 4am. Minnesota did the same thing, they just didn't fall into the pool. Either way, both of them are going to have a miserable flight home. 

[TwinsDr2021]

9 hours ago, yeahyabetcha said:

Was there a better offer?

Well their was always the option of not picking up Polanco's option and just letting him go.

[JD-TWINS]

17 hours ago, SaberNerd said:

If you have to pick a winner, it is clearly us.  Polanco is worth -0.4 fWAR and the Mariners picked up salary in the trade.  While it is not clear that we will actually gain any MLB production from this trade, we still have 3 players who could in the future, while they will have 0 when they decline Polanco's option.

With our budget and surplus at 2B, if we don't do this trade we probably don't sign Santana and put one of Julien/Polanco at 1B.

Finally, a realist.

Jorge was a long time Twin ……I get it……his past performance was clearly that, in the past. 105 games & 86 games over 2 seasons. He has had a worse year than Julien and Eddie can’t make our Big Club, even with Lee hurt & Farmer underperforming. This means Polanco’s about 5th in the line of guys eligible to play 2B for the Twins this year. He got his 11th HR yesterday - Julien had 7 HR by April 28th.

Topa has done zero to improve his value so his salary through arbitration for ‘25 has to be very inexpensive. He’s back in ‘25 with decent potential. With just that potential, Twins win.

Gonzalez - Bowen ……..maybe they never contribute at Target? A 20 year old evaluated in MLB top 100 prospects, even for a minute, is a worthwhile gamble.

Freeing Polanco’s salary and netting enough to sign Santana, another singular move that makes the trade in Twins favor.

[arby58]

20 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

Sometimes prospects take time to develop.

True - the Escobar trade didn't look so great in 2018, until Duran became a quality relief pitcher in 2022. Same with the Pressly trade, but Alcala is finally making it look a bit more balanced. 

[Major League Ready]

20 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

The Twins could have simply not tendered Farmer and Thielbar to save money. Falvey bungled the trade market. Yes, Polanco has had a rough year but then again the Twins could have drafted Mike Trout. The trade is over as is that draft.

What do the Twins have in Topa, Gonazalez, and Bowen? This is a hard guess. Desclafani is done. Topa is likely facing high odds, Bowen is totally a guess, and Gonzalez is at best a future PH/DH. Last week I saw him wait until a fly ball landed before he moved. He didn't lose it. He just waddled over ten feet picked it up and threw it in. The announcer simply said, "Wow". The telecast then showed two replays. Gabriel does have a good arm. Maybe he can pitch.

My main objection to the trade was that the Twins did not improve their team. As for the money? Well, it seemed easy last winter to nontender Farmer ($6.3M) and Thielbar ($3.3M). Then subtract DeSclafani ($4M) and Topa ($1.2M) and keep Polanco = money saved. Always expected a trade but wanted an improvement to the team. The Twins lost this trade, big time.

There were a few people who advocated for keeping Polanco.  Others said we had a few better options at 2B and the money should be spent on pitching.  I don't know how you conclude the team would have been better off with Polanco.  He is a replacement level player at this point.  His salary went to signing Santana, DeSclafani, and Margot.  DeSclafani netted nothing but Santana has definitely made this team better and while Margot has sucked as a PH, he will be an asset starting against LHP in the playoffs.

Farmer and Thielbar were completely independent decisions.  Farmer had played an important role in the past and there was no reason to believe he would fall off a cliff.  That said, I said at the time I would move them and spent the money on pitching.

I just don't agree with the concept that the only trade that's a good trade is one that makes the current team better.  Cleveland has produced more war over the past two decades from players acquired as prospects than they have produced from the draft.  Falvey is following Tampa's lead.  They make trades like this one where the current team is better off or not worse off while collecting assets that make future teams better.  

[Otaknam]

I thought the Twins got a lot in return for Polanco. Obviously the Twins came out on top in this trade, despite continuing their track record of acquiring injured pitchers. How Bowen and Gonzalez develop will determine how this trade turns out. And maybe Topa helps next year. Dumping Polanco’s salary was the reason for the trade, and his production has been poor this year anyway. 

[old nurse]

20 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

My hope is they don’t double down and tender an offer to Topa in arbitration. He will be 34 and the injury and age will add to the decline. He doesn’t have any space for decline. It is unreasonable to think he will perform anywhere near his lone good major league season.

It doesn’t matter if the trade was a loss for the Mariners. The trade did not improve the 2024 Twins. It won’t improve the 2025 Twins. If they aren’t going to compete for free agents, they need to utilize their trade assets better.

At age 34 with an injury history Topa should be smart enough to grab any offer the Twins make. The alternative would probably be a minor league deal 

[USAFChief]

I thought it was obvious at the time of the trade it didn't make the Twins better. 

That has been proven in spades. 

 

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

Let's remember, Gonzalez is about 2 years younger than the average A+ player. Another year in A+, without the 2 month injury,  might get him back in sync. He will still be only 21 next year and closer to the average age in the league.

[mickster]

21 hours ago, mikelink45 said:

Neither team won - trades can't be judged in a partial season unless one of the assets just goes off as a star.   Right now we would be saying bench Polanco based on his 204 average and 0.0 WAR, but we also don't know if the trade set him back mentally.  I just can't imagine what I would have done if I had been traded to another state during any of my career jobs.  Baseball is a strange occupation as Curt Flood tried to point out.  

In any other profession we can choose to leave, choose to stay, or choose the other company we would work for.

Both teams got what they were looking for.   Twins dumped a salary an opened up 2nd for Julien.    Mariners got a 2nd baseman they wanted.     It hasn't worked out for either side, but I bet they would both do it again.

[bean5302]

4 hours ago, arby58 said:

True - the Escobar trade didn't look so great in 2018, until Duran became a quality relief pitcher in 2022. Same with the Pressly trade, but Alcala is finally making it look a bit more balanced. 

The Escobar trade still doesn't look fantastic when you consider net present value. When you trade assets from a team seeking to be immediately competitive, having your acquisitions not help the team for 3-4 years isn't ideal. I think both the Diamondbacks and Twins won the Escobar trade in the end, though. Same thing with the Blue Jays and Twins in the Berrios deal. Martin was the real headliner and he's a utility player at best. It took years for SWR to provide value for what was one of the most coveted starting pitchers on the market with 1.5yrs of control. 

[bean5302]

2 hours ago, mickster said:

Both teams got what they were looking for.   Twins dumped a salary an opened up 2nd for Julien.    Mariners got a 2nd baseman they wanted.     It hasn't worked out for either side, but I bet they would both do it again.

The Twins didn't dump much salary, and they didn't get any value in return for the salary they picked up. That's the issue with the trade. As the teams who were a good fit for Polanco dropped off the list like flies, it became apparent Falvey had overplayed his hand.
Polanco $10.5MM
Desclafani ($4MM)
Topa ($1.25MM)
Bowen (A+ MiLB)
Gonzalez (A+ MiLB)
Net savings $5.25MM

Bowen and especially Gonzalez are nice on the prospect list, but they were many years away.

[Major League Ready]

6 hours ago, USAFChief said:

I thought it was obvious at the time of the trade it didn't make the Twins better. 

That has been proven in spades. 

 

How is the team not better with Santana VS Polanco?  I guess you just ignore the player acquired with those funds if it suits your narrative.  Also, your position back then was that it was obvious the team would be better with Polanco and that has been proven false in spades.  

[Mike Sixel]

6 hours ago, USAFChief said:

I thought it was obvious at the time of the trade it didn't make the Twins better. 

That has been proven in spades. 

 

Other than freeing up money for Santana? Not playing polanco, and playing who they have has been better than playing him. I have zero idea how you conclude this. 

[USAFChief]

58 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

 Also, your position back then was that it was obvious the team would be better with Polanco and that has been proven false in spades.  

Now you're just making things up.

My position, from the day the Twins announced the trade, has been it made the Twins weaker in 2024. I understood the need to shed salary. But they got hosed. I posted the same in the thread announcing the deal. I said DeSclafani was worse than nothing, Topa a Longshot to help at all, and two far off minor leaguers don't help the 2024 team.

I haven't varied off that stance since January.

The original trade thread was on January 29, if you'd care to review.

Might be a good reminder of YOUR positions on that day, too.

 

 

[twinfan]

Seattle could be the winner this year if Polonco has a good 6 weeks that are left in the season and they make the playoffs. But the Twins will be winners in the long term because they shed money that went elsewhere to help and may have 2 major leaguers for next year if they get over their injuries. And you never know about the minor leaguers. We'll see. I liked Polonco but he hasn't done much this year.

[arby58]

8 hours ago, bean5302 said:

thThe Escobar trade still doesn't look fantastic when you consider net present value. When you trade assets from a team seeking to be immediately competitive, having your acquisitions not help the team for 3-4 years isn't ideal. I think both the Diamondbacks and Twins won the Escobar trade in the end, though. Same thing with the Blue Jays and Twins in the Berrios deal. Martin was the real headliner and he's a utility player at best. It took years for SWR to provide value for what was one of the most coveted starting pitchers on the market with 1.5yrs of control. 

The Twins were a sub .500 team in 2018, so it's hard to see how they expected to be immediately competitive after trading one of their better players. I agree that in the end this worked out fine for both teams. 

In four years, Berrios in Toronto is 38-32, with a 4.20 ERA. That is ok but not exactly lights out.

[arby58]

8 hours ago, bean5302 said:

The Twins didn't dump much salary, and they didn't get any value in return for the salary they picked up. That's the issue with the trade. As the teams who were a good fit for Polanco dropped off the list like flies, it became apparent Falvey had overplayed his hand.
Polanco $10.5MM
Desclafani ($4MM)
Topa ($1.25MM)
Bowen (A+ MiLB)
Gonzalez (A+ MiLB)
Net savings $5.25MM

Bowen and especially Gonzalez are nice on the prospect list, but they were many years away.

The savings is exactly what they are paying Carlos Santana, and he is having a solid year. Topa is still under contract at a reasonable salary and can be expected to also provide some return. Polanco is 0.3 WAR for the year (Santana is 1.8). End of discussion.

[Joe A. Preusser]

You all are crazy.

I love Polanco.  But he plays a position of great depth for us.  Deal from surplus.

He has been pretty bad this year.  We would hate to have him playing for us right now.  I know I would.

We have Topa 2 years control and 1 or 2 decent prospects.  And money i will equate with this year's Santana.  Valued against the NEGATIVE impact Polo has been.  And it's likely he has a new team next year, so NO future value.  

How is this even a discusssion?  

This is a 10-1 advantage for the Twins.  

[SwainZag]

On 8/11/2024 at 12:05 PM, mnfireman said:

The biggest loser in this trade so far is Edouard Julien.

Polanco (and probably Arraez) was traded and the starting 2B job was handed to him. He struggled and the team was forced to demote him to AAA. This in turn forced the team to promote Austin Martin and, following injuries to Correa, Lewis and Farmer, promote Brooks Lee. Both have played well enough to keep Julien in AAA, except for a brief period when Farmer was first hurt. 

When Lee was placed on the IL, Farmer was given the spot, not Julien.

Correa is due back soon and I'm sure Martin will be optioned out. 

The question is: Who get's called up in September when rosters expand as I'm sure the team will call up one position player and one pitcher??

I mean....they gave Julien a great opportunity to seize the position and he struggled.  Not making the trade would have made Julien a loser.  It's kind of on his own shoulders.  I don't see how the trade was anything but a positive for him, he just didn't take the reigns. 

[Riverbrian]

I will continue to say what I said before. 
I questioned the trade at the time and I still question it regardless of the 2024 numbers. 
 

You might ask. How RB can you continue to question it? 
 

Simple. When the trade was made and the off season complete… nobody would have been able to convince me that Polonco wasn’t the best hitter of all the moving pieces directly or indirectly involved.
 

i don’t care how Polonco hit this year or Santana hit this year. In March I didn’t think the trade helped us in 2024. I felt Polonco was the best hitter of the bunch and he didnt need to be platooned. 
 

They spent the Polonco Money on Desclafini, Santana and Margot. I questioned that. Santana has done very well but I felt Polonco was the best hitter of the bunch at the time. They needed two roster spots in Julien and Farmer combined to take up the one spot Polonco would have occupied. 
 

And of course the log jam argument. I laughed at it then and I laugh at it now. 
 

Who won the trade? That depends on the development of the prospects. Right now…in 2024…  the Mariners won the trade because Polonco is the only player active at the MLB level. 
 

[Major League Ready]

14 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Now you're just making things up.

My position, from the day the Twins announced the trade, has been it made the Twins weaker in 2024. I understood the need to shed salary. But they got hosed. I posted the same in the thread announcing the deal. I said DeSclafani was worse than nothing, Topa a Longshot to help at all, and two far off minor leaguers don't help the 2024 team.

I haven't varied off that stance since January.

The original trade thread was on January 29, if you'd care to review.

Might be a good reminder of YOUR positions on that day, too.

 

 

And your position was wrong.  It most certainly did not make the Twins weaker in 2024.   I know exactly what my position was because I took a lot of grief from a handful of people that insisted it was a no brainer that losing Polanco was going to be horrible.   The return turned out to be a worst-case scenario for 2024 and it still did not hurt the team.  I also don't advocate running the team with only the present year in mind.  That's a really good way to assure you will be bad often.

[USAFChief]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

And your position was wrong.  It most certainly did not make the Twins weaker in 2024.   I know exactly what my position was because I took a lot of grief from a handful of people that insisted it was a no brainer that losing Polanco was going to be horrible.   The return turned out to be a worst-case scenario for 2024 and it still did not hurt the team.  I also don't advocate running the team with only the present year in mind.  That's a really good way to assure you will be bad often.

I'd accept your apology for lying about what I said, but I can't, since you didn't. 

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

I'd accept your apology for lying about what I said, but I can't, since you didn't. 

18 hours ago you said "My position, from the day the Twins announced the trade, has been it made the Twins weaker in 2024"  You were wrong.  I would accept your admission you were wrong but you didn't give it.  We are all going to be wrong in these predictions.  I thought Julien would be an above average player.  Maybe he will be someday but as of this moment I was wrong.

[FlyingFinn]

On 8/12/2024 at 8:08 AM, Major League Ready said:

Falvey is following Tampa's lead. 

He's trying but I think the part Falvey missed was trading a great player just as you see they are declining (whether it's too many miles on his legs, injuries piling up, age, etc.) and not wait until everyone sees the decline. Tampa does this all the time. Not many of us were wanting a Polanco trade a year plus before it happened, but there were a few. We would have got so much more at that time (but don't ask me the number of times I have said trade/cut XX player and now they are doing great - like Griffin Jax).

[Colbeh]

On 8/12/2024 at 9:43 AM, USAFChief said:

I thought it was obvious at the time of the trade it didn't make the Twins better. 

That has been proven in spades. 

 

It has been proven in spades? Thats just based on your opinion which is leaving meat on the bone.

Assuming you're just referring to the Twins not being better in 2024. Subtracting Polanco for a youth movement of Julien, Lee, Martin, and giving more chances to Castro has helped quite a bit. The money saved from his contract and an extra roster spot offensively is what brought in Santana which has been a really good investment given his defense, offense and experience.

 

[Major League Ready]

5 hours ago, FlyingFinn said:

He's trying but I think the part Falvey missed was trading a great player just as you see they are declining (whether it's too many miles on his legs, injuries piling up, age, etc.) and not wait until everyone sees the decline. Tampa does this all the time. Not many of us were wanting a Polanco trade a year plus before it happened, but there were a few. We would have got so much more at that time (but don't ask me the number of times I have said trade/cut XX player and now they are doing great - like Griffin Jax).

I meant that Tampa has done quite a few deals where they move a player in a depth position and get some major league contribution and prospects.   Quite a few fans are very focused on the benefits of a trade like this one being immediate.  Those fans don't like these deals but Tampa and Cleveland have used this model to significantly outperform other organizations anywhere near their revenue level.  They have literally produced more WAR from players acquired as prospects than they have the draft.  

If they had kept Polanco, he is playing even if he sucks.  Their other options provide greater flexibility and therefore a higher probability of success.  If Julien sucks, they can send him down.   Castro is option 2.  If Lee proves ready they can utilize Castro in a utility role and play Lee at 2B.  If Miranda bounces back they play him at 3rd and Lewis to 2nd was also an option.  I would bet they felt more confident in getting production out of that group vs Polanco alone.  Of course, they also netted $9.75M to be invested elsewhere.  Then, there was DeScalfani.   He was a risk but they may just have seen that potential contribution as a bonus.  

I think they projected this trade as a net gain.  If they got lucky with DeSclafani an even better net and the prospects were a bonus.

[arby58]

On 8/12/2024 at 9:43 AM, USAFChief said:

I thought it was obvious at the time of the trade it didn't make the Twins better. 

That has been proven in spades. 

 

They used the money saved to sign Santana, and he made the Twins better. If you say Santana wasn't part of the trade, you are just parsing words - the only way they could sign him was by shedding Polanco's salary.

[arby58]

On 8/13/2024 at 6:56 AM, Riverbrian said:

I will continue to say what I said before. 
I questioned the trade at the time and I still question it regardless of the 2024 numbers. 
 

You might ask. How RB can you continue to question it? 
 

Simple. When the trade was made and the off season complete… nobody would have been able to convince me that Polonco wasn’t the best hitter of all the moving pieces directly or indirectly involved.
 

i don’t care how Polonco hit this year or Santana hit this year. In March I didn’t think the trade helped us in 2024. I felt Polonco was the best hitter of the bunch and he didnt need to be platooned. 
 

They spent the Polonco Money on Desclafini, Santana and Margot. I questioned that. Santana has done very well but I felt Polonco was the best hitter of the bunch at the time. They needed two roster spots in Julien and Farmer combined to take up the one spot Polonco would have occupied. 
 

And of course the log jam argument. I laughed at it then and I laugh at it now. 
 

Who won the trade? That depends on the development of the prospects. Right now…in 2024…  the Mariners won the trade because Polonco is the only player active at the MLB level. 
 

First, Farmer was on the roster with Polanco in 2023, and he would have been on the roster in 2024 regardless of trade/no trade. It's fine that you felt Polanco was the better hitter in March, but it's hard to understand how you can feel that way in August. Even with a bit of uptick of late, his OPS is .645, OPS+ is 88, and WAR is 0.5. Santana is .749, 109, and 1.8. His defense is also not nearly that of Santana's.

Given that you admit the Twins used the savings to sign Santana, it is disingenuous to claim the Mariners won the trade because Polanco is the only player in the trade active at the MLB level. 

[Riverbrian]

On 8/14/2024 at 7:15 AM, arby58 said:

First, Farmer was on the roster with Polanco in 2023, and he would have been on the roster in 2024 regardless of trade/no trade. It's fine that you felt Polanco was the better hitter in March, but it's hard to understand how you can feel that way in August. Even with a bit of uptick of late, his OPS is .645, OPS+ is 88, and WAR is 0.5. Santana is .749, 109, and 1.8. His defense is also not nearly that of Santana's.

Given that you admit the Twins used the savings to sign Santana, it is disingenuous to claim the Mariners won the trade because Polanco is the only player in the trade active at the MLB level. 

I'm not sure you know what disingenuous means. 

I have been sincere and candid. You accuse me of being disingenuous because "I admit" Santana was signed with the savings". Presenting the opposite side shows consideration of both sides. I also admit that Santana has had the better year because it would be disingenuous to not do that. 

Mike Sixel can thumbs down my post. You can use big words that you don't seem to understand. I can block a poster because he belligerently and continually distorted my thoughts on the trade. 

Let me simplify my position. When the trade was made... I felt Polanco was the best player involved and it wasn't really that close. I felt the 2024 team should be adding the best player involved in a trade not trading it. I wasn't interested in prospects. I was interested in making the 2024 team better. Polanco had been a solid hitter every year that didn't need to be platooned. 

I realize that some will claim that they saw this drop in production coming from the 30 year old Polanco. I'm sure that some will claim that they saw this the meteoric rise to slightly above average from the 38 year old Santana. 

Yes... Santana has been better than Polanco but let's be clear... while Santana was indirectly signed by freeing up Polanco money along with others. They could have taken that money and spent it on (For Example) J.D. Martinez instead so Santana doesn't get to be included in the trade. 

And no matter what Polanco has done to this point. He could still help the Mariners in August, September and the playoffs. Will Desclafini, Topa, Gonzalez or Bowen?

The Twins only win this trade in the future if Gonzalez or Bowen turn into something around 2026 which I admit is possible.