Reviewing the Jorge Polanco Trade

[arby58]

3 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

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.  

 

Repetition isn't argumentation. You presented nothing new here. Ignoring the money saved and how it was spent in the trade calculus is, in fact, not candid or sincere (i.e., disingenuous).

[Major League Ready]

6 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

 

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. 

 

You have the luxury as a fan or not caring about anything except 2024.  That position will get a CBO / GM fired in baseball and any other industry.   I am going to watch Twins baseball in 2025 and beyond so I want someone running the show that balances the present and future.

The whole best player thing is an oversimplification.  It does not matter if Polanco was the best player traded.  It's one thing if you can't replace that best player.  It's entirely another thing if you can replace or improve upon that player's production at 2B / 3B and use the incremental funds to improve the team which is exactly what they did.  

[SwainZag]

6 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

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.  

 

To play devil's advocate, trading a player like Polanco was possible because of the depth at the position.   With Julien having a breakout rookie year and Lee knocking on the door there were internal options.  That's not mentioning Jorge's knack of missing plenty of games with injury, missing 56% of games over the past 2 years.  Though I don't think anyone could say with a straight face they saw this big of a drop-off. 

Even with the Twins being contenders, he was a prime trade candidate, especially knowing now the budget constraints the team had.

Santana filled a need at 1st base.  AK was and still is unproven at 1st, though I think we all hoped he would breakout and be a mainstay at the pairing.  No one knew Miranda would bounce back to an even better player than he was 2 years ago after his injury plagued 2023.  Even Santana's "meteoric" rise this season, he has more or less matched his production from last year. 

On the JD Martinez front, with him strictly being a DH, it was probably a long shot the Twins would give him $12M knowing that Lewis, Buxton and Correa would most likely need days off in three field this season...and they all hit from the right side.

With his current production and the money the Twins saved has to be considered a win right now, regardless of what the prospects do.  As for the future, sure it could still go either way, but it's pretty hard to watch him struggle and think....man I wish he was in the Twins lineup everyday right now.  

Getting rid or Jorge and adding Santana could just be lucky timing, or they were savvy moves by the front office whom are both working out at the moment. 

[Riverbrian]

On 8/15/2024 at 2:37 PM, SwainZag said:

To play devil's advocate, trading a player like Polanco was possible because of the depth at the position.   With Julien having a breakout rookie year and Lee knocking on the door there were internal options.  That's not mentioning Jorge's knack of missing plenty of games with injury, missing 56% of games over the past 2 years.  Though I don't think anyone could say with a straight face they saw this big of a drop-off. 

Even with the Twins being contenders, he was a prime trade candidate, especially knowing now the budget constraints the team had.

Santana filled a need at 1st base.  AK was and still is unproven at 1st, though I think we all hoped he would breakout and be a mainstay at the pairing.  No one knew Miranda would bounce back to an even better player than he was 2 years ago after his injury plagued 2023.  Even Santana's "meteoric" rise this season, he has more or less matched his production from last year. 

On the JD Martinez front, with him strictly being a DH, it was probably a long shot the Twins would give him $12M knowing that Lewis, Buxton and Correa would most likely need days off in three field this season...and they all hit from the right side.

With his current production and the money the Twins saved has to be considered a win right now, regardless of what the prospects do.  As for the future, sure it could still go either way, but it's pretty hard to watch him struggle and think....man I wish he was in the Twins lineup everyday right now.  

Getting rid or Jorge and adding Santana could just be lucky timing, or they were savvy moves by the front office whom are both working out at the moment. 

I look at it a little different. 

I was excited about the depth. I thought that our depth had the potential to protect the team from the things that test a team every year ... things like injuries and poor play.

The way I see it. When you have depth... that's when you add top end players... not trade them. 

I don't see depth as something to remove. I see depth as something to relentlessly pursue. True depth is the only thing that can make your team bulletproof. A starting 9 and 4 guys on the bench is not depth because that is 4 guys that you don't want to play.

Mainly... I just don't see Polanco and Julien on the same roster as a problem. I see it as something to strive for.  

I was excited about that depth. I wasn't looking for more depth.  Adding more depth doesn't make sense. That's why I questioned if it was a good idea to take a Polanco type talent and replace him with what I thought was 3 lesser players. I am not going to use hindsight to change my position. I recognize that Santana has out played Polanco thus far in 2024. 

It was my opinion that the Twins should have been adding this off-season not subtracting. I get budgets... if the team has to cut... they have to cut. However... they took the Polanco money and spent it on 3 lesser players. We didn't need more depth... we needed top end players like Polanco. 

Out of all the players Seattle sent to the Twins and all the players that the Twins added to the roster after Polanco was traded to Seattle. Polanco was clearly the best player changing teams. The Twins should have been adding Polanco types not subtracting them.  

Polanco was the best player changing teams and it wasn't really close. 

As for JD Martinez... I have a bad habit of throwing out specific examples when making a broader point which causes people to look at the specific example.  

It isn't worth discussing JD Martinez... I was just throwing a 12 million dollar example out there. The broader point was that the Polanco money could have been spent a number of different ways that didn't involve Santana. I was only making that point because some jerk was calling me disingenuous for listing both sides of the discussion and accusing me of ignoring something that I pointed out. 

The bottom line in regards to my thoughts are this:

1. At the time... I questioned if it was the right move to to turn Polanco into three lesser players. I have been forced to defend that position which has turned me into a stronger advocate for keeping Polanco that I probably intended to be. I still question if it was the right move and the reason I still question it is because it's a process related question.  Santana has outplayed Polanco thus far so in the end. It worked out.   

2. If Polanco was still on the team... I'd probably be complaining about his poor play and expiring contract. I don't deny this. Yet at the time of the trade... no one would have been able to convince me that we didn't have room for Polanco and Julien on the roster and no one would have been able to convince me that Santana was better than Polanco. 

3. No matter my opinion... the Twins have done very very well offensively this season. 

4. We are mere injuries away from Margot starting in the playoffs against a right handed pitcher and that's why it matters. It's also why I'd probably be complaining about Polanco on the roster right now while still saying that I think he shouldn't have been sold for what I felt were lesser parts.