Nobody Wins: The Jorge Polanco Trade

[Riverbrian]

On 11/2/2024 at 11:52 AM, DJL44 said:

In hindsight, Falvey should have gone for more prospects and less MLB ready help.

I can see the logic in this thinking. And I can agree that in hindsight trading for all prospects would have been better than what actually happened. 

At the very least... by making prospects the entire return in the deal. There may have been money left over to add someone at the trade deadline and that may have provided some 2024 benefit. 

However... With that said... in consideration of where the Twins were in the competitive cycle. Coming off a decent playoff performance with lots of young talent taking up a decent chunk of the roster. The timing for off loading a good MLB player for future benefit would have been wrong and therefore even though it may have been better than what actually happened... it was still a bad idea.    

[tony&rodney]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

No.  I am saying that in terms of the net payroll +/- from 2023 to 2024 that Farmer's cost was already accounted for other than a $715K increase.  Therefore, it makes no sense to allocate the savings from Polanco to Farmer.  Had they kept Polanco instead the net Change would have been Polanco's salary went up $3M and they would have jettisoned Farmer's $5.85 for a net change of -$2.85M.  I said at the time they could have gotten rid of both.

I just don't understand this defense, however it is constructed, of a trade that did absolutely nothing to improve the 2024 team. There have been dozens of comments and replies that have covered all angles of the trade with Seattle last winter. The Twins  received two minor leaguers (I have watched both), Justin Topa, and Anthony DeSclafaini in the trade. How did this exchange make the Twins a better team is what I asked myself. 

I'm not looking for a return response from anyone because this is a dead subject. I would only ask that each person satisfy themselves with their reasoning. Disagreement is a positive thing on many occasions because we see separate sides to an issue. I think everyone has sufficiently explained their positions and have their views and it was a good conversation. This is one of the joys of Twins Daily.

I'm looking forward to how individuals on Twins Daily construct a team for 2025 on a budget of somewhere between $115-135 million. In such an exercise, I am interested in knowing how the rosters constructed may have the ability to improve the prospects of the 2025 team being 1. more interesting and 2. more successful.

Further, I am hoping that everyone can avoid all talk of the constraints of payroll and the Pohlads. The Twins are competing initially with their AL Central foes. While winning playoff series remains an important goal, winning the division or getting into the playoffs is a first step. Management of the roster is crucial to taking that step. I wonder how this will be accomplished?

[DJL44]

29 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

The timing for off loading a good MLB player for future benefit would have been wrong and therefore even though it may have been better than what actually happened... it was still a bad idea.    

There was quite a bit of questioning whether Polanco was still a good player. He missed quite a bit of time with injury over the past few seasons.

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, tony&rodney said:

I just don't understand this defense, however it is constructed, of a trade that did absolutely nothing to improve the 2024 team. There have been dozens of comments and replies that have covered all angles of the trade with Seattle last winter. The Twins  received two minor leaguers (I have watched both), Justin Topa, and Anthony DeSclafaini in the trade. How did this exchange make the Twins a better team is what I asked myself. 

I'm not looking for a return response from anyone because this is a dead subject. I would only ask that each person satisfy themselves with their reasoning. Disagreement is a positive thing on many occasions because we see separate sides to an issue. I think everyone has sufficiently explained their positions and have their views and it was a good conversation. This is one of the joys of Twins Daily.

I'm looking forward to how individuals on Twins Daily construct a team for 2025 on a budget of somewhere between $115-135 million. In such an exercise, I am interested in knowing how the rosters constructed may have the ability to improve the prospects of the 2025 team being 1. more interesting and 2. more successful.

Further, I am hoping that everyone can avoid all talk of the constraints of payroll and the Pohlads. The Twins are competing initially with their AL Central foes. While winning playoff series remains an important goal, winning the division or getting into the playoffs is a first step. Management of the roster is crucial to taking that step. I wonder how this will be accomplished?

Lets say the only player they got back would have been Harry Ford and he ends up being a well-above average catcher and contributes for several years.  Would it have mattered that we did not improve the team in 2024?  They lost virtually nothing by letting him go so the cost of that future production would have been zero.  If I offered you $1M on 12/31/24 or $2M on 12/31/25, which would you take?  

[tony&rodney]

18 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

If I offered you $1M on 12/31/24 or $2M on 12/31/25, which would you take?  

This is an easy one to answer. I would take the $1M, buy NVDA, and now I have $3M.

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

There was quite a bit of questioning whether Polanco was still a good player. He missed quite a bit of time with injury over the past few seasons.

Those debates can happen with any player... especially from us in the Twinsdaily crowd. Those debates will continue on into the future with other players.

Gabriel Gonzalez included in the trade indicates to me at least decent value in the eyes of Seattle and in the eyes of Minnesota because of what was paid by Seattle and what Minnesota asked for. Hindsight can justify the questioning by us in Twinsdaily land. Hindsight can even determine weather Seattle was wrong or Minnesota was wrong or maybe both were wrong in the end.    

In my opinion... At the time of the trade... Polanco was a player who didn't need to be platooned and we needed at least 5 of those upper end types of players who didn't need to be platooned and we had no budget to work with. Yeah... He may have been an injury risk just like Lewis, Correa and Buxton consistently are but we needed those upper end guys because this was a team trying to win today... not rebuild with more prospects.

We need those 5 upper end guys... Especially if we were going to commit 6 out of 11 spots to players to serve platoon roles. 

Polanco may have tanked this year in Seattle and not been an upper end guy. But at the time of the trade. Seattle and Minnesota didn't know that he would tank.

Minnesota then spread the Polanco money around to players who were not upper end guys. 

Anyway... I can see your logic of getting all prospects. I hope you can see my logic by saying that we needed an upper end guy instead. 

[Jeff K]

On 11/4/2024 at 9:07 AM, tony&rodney said:

I won't correct you. Those whom are fixed on knowing how Polanco was going to perform have their position. I accept the differences of opinion. Keeping Farmer and trading Polanco was related per Falvey. It's all good.

I am curious what you are predicting for Royce Lewis and Edouard Julien for 2025?

I wish I knew!  Royce Lewis sure seems like a player.  Julien?  Unless Julien turns it around, or someone comes on strong in Spring training, I think Castro ought to play 2nd base more regularly.