Justin Topa's Injury and Three Other Things That Might Matter from Wednesday's Spring Training Game

[Linus]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

Trading away a player that produced 0 WAR for $10.5M is one of the worst in team history?  I would say that it was a big nothing burger.  They lost nothing and gained nothing.  I guess if one argued the salary difference was used to sign Santana it was a significant net gain.

What Polanco did after the trade is irrelevant.  At the time of the trade he was still a valuable asset that the FO turned into nothing.  

[NYCTK]

3 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

...where he can focus on his hitting & raise his OPS to levels he's capable of, where he can get Martin haters off his back.

Absolutely ridiculous. Outside of C, the burden of a position isn't meaningfully bringing down players hitting ability. It can allow a player to bulk up if they've moved off SS like ARod perhaps, but Martin isn't doing that. 

Austin Martin isn't suddenly going to add power because he's moved from CF to 2B. 

[Doctor Gast]

10 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

Absolutely ridiculous. Outside of C, the burden of a position isn't meaningfully bringing down players hitting ability. It can allow a player to bulk up if they've moved off SS like ARod perhaps, but Martin isn't doing that. 

Austin Martin isn't suddenly going to add power because he's moved from CF to 2B. 

Why don't you read my text, I didn't say hitting HRs. I said raise his OPS, which was at .848 at AAA & .936 at AFL. Focusing on his hitting doesn't mean hitting HRs. But you are a type of fan that believes a player is worthless unless he hits a ton of HRs, you are terribly wrong.

[NYCTK]

23 minutes ago, Linus said:

What Polanco did after the trade is irrelevant.  At the time of the trade he was still a valuable asset that the FO turned into nothing.  

He wasn't that valuable. The market deemed he was worth a reliever and a prospect. The big failure is Twins scouting completely whiffing on the prospect. 

Jose Iglesias was available until yesterday. Jorge just isn't special. 

[Major League Ready]

27 minutes ago, Linus said:

What Polanco did after the trade is irrelevant.  At the time of the trade he was still a valuable asset that the FO turned into nothing.  

So, Polanco's production is irrelevant but the production of players coming back is relevant.  That's a convenient argument.  I agree that there is an assumed value at the time.  However, there is eventually a quantifiable value that is much more relevant in terms of assessing value than the forecasted values made by both sides make in a trade.  At the time of the trade, the vast majority of MLB reporters felt the twins got the better of that trade.   Now that we can measure the actual results, nothing was lost and nothing was gained.

I said at the time I would have preferred they trade Polanco for prospects and reinvest the savings.  Therefore, I agree they had an asset that should have returned something.  We also can't ignore that moving Polanco did free up dollars.  Obviously, there were other moves made so we can't tie the Sanatana signing strictly to moving Polanco.  However, moving Polanco did free up some dollars and the investment in Santana proved to be a much better move than keeping Polanco.  

 

[NYCTK]

7 minutes ago, Doctor Gast said:

Why don't you read my text, I didn't say hitting HRs. I said raise his OPS, which was at .848 at AAA & .936 at AFL. Focusing on his hitting doesn't mean hitting HRs. But you are a type of fan that believes a player is worthless unless he hits a ton of HRs, you are terribly wrong.

Sure. That's why I'm such a Bader defender, because of the 12 HR and not because of the totality of the player. 

Anyone even looking at AFL is just setting themselves up for disappointment. And as for AAA stats, Martin is arguably the 4th best option from AAA to play 2B last season. So why the hell do I care about Austin Martin? 

He's a junk player that is only hyped up because he was a first round draft pick and because he was the primary return in a big profile trade. 

[jud6312]

I'm expecting nothing (again) from Topa. 

 

I'm expecting 15-20 good innings from Stewart before he finds himself back on IL Island, where it seems he owns a timeshare. 

 

 

[TwinsDr2021]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Trading away a player that produced 0 WAR for $10.5M is one of the worst in team history?  I would say that it was a big nothing burger.  They lost nothing and gained nothing.  I guess if one argued the salary difference was used to sign Santana it was a significant net gain.

The trade wasn't the worst, that is pretty obvious. The signing Polanco and trading him is one of the worst moves by this FO, with that said there is still a chance the minor league player they bought could change this outcome.

Bringing in a 37 year old first basemen and not making the playoffs on top of the trade isn't losing nothing, they lost money/fans in the seats, and lost seeing what they have in prospects.

They thought they had an asset that could help the team last year and in the future, and they as of now were wrong. (I have been saying this since the trade happened)

[Major League Ready]

19 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

The trade wasn't the worst, that is pretty obvious. The signing Polanco and trading him is one of the worst moves by this FO, with that said there is still a chance the minor league player they bought could change this outcome.

Bringing in a 37 year old first basemen and not making the playoffs on top of the trade isn't losing nothing, they lost money/fans in the seats, and lost seeing what they have in prospects.

They thought they had an asset that could help the team last year and in the future, and they as of now were wrong. (I have been saying this since the trade happened)

Help me here, I don't follow the logic.  How did losing a replacement level player contribute to not making the playoffs?  I also don't understand the comment about Santana.  Yes, he was 37 years old and for that reason most of us (me included) were not high on him.  Most of us would have preferred Hoskins who also ended up being replacement level.  So, how was bringing in Sanatana and his gold glove a negative?

[Linus]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

So, Polanco's production is irrelevant but the production of players coming back is relevant.  That's a convenient argument.  I agree that there is an assumed value at the time.  However, there is eventually a quantifiable value that is much more relevant in terms of assessing value than the forecasted values made by both sides make in a trade.  At the time of the trade, the vast majority of MLB reporters felt the twins got the better of that trade.   Now that we can measure the actual results, nothing was lost and nothing was gained.

I said at the time I would have preferred they trade Polanco for prospects and reinvest the savings.  Therefore, I agree they had an asset that should have returned something.  We also can't ignore that moving Polanco did free up dollars.  Obviously, there were other moves made so we can't tie the Sanatana signing strictly to moving Polanco.  However, moving Polanco did free up some dollars and the investment in Santana proved to be a much better move than keeping Polanco.  

 

Of course the players coming back are relevant because those are the assets you acquired.  The payroll is a legit asset acquired but we don’t know who that money actually went to.  It’s okay to admit Falvey messed that one up.

[Linus]

1 hour ago, NYCTK said:

He wasn't that valuable. The market deemed he was worth a reliever and a prospect. The big failure is Twins scouting completely whiffing on the prospect. 

Jose Iglesias was available until yesterday. Jorge just isn't special. 

Not anymore but he was one of the better middle infielders available at the time of the trade.  I agree about whiffing on the evaluation - that is my point.  I think people are assuming that I didn’t want Polanco traded.  Not true - I was all for trading him or Julien plus prospects for pitching.  The idea was sound; the execution was poor.

[KnoblauchWasFramed]

The fact that this team has not only mastered the ability to draft and "develop" injury prone players but also the ability to go out and find and trade for injury prone players as well is quite the wild accomplishment. 

[Swing Batter-Batter]

Stewart back is a good thing. Topa out is hardly even a thing.

[TwinsDr2021]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

Help me here, I don't follow the logic.  How did losing a replacement level player contribute to not making the playoffs?  I also don't understand the comment about Santana.  Yes, he was 37 years old and for that reason most of us (me included) were not high on him.  Most of us would have preferred Hoskins who also ended up being replacement level.  So, how was bringing in Sanatana and his gold glove a negative?

Didn't say losing a replacement level player contributed to not making the playoffs. I said they didn't make the playoffs. I said they signed a guy to a 10 million dollar contract they didn't to, and then traded him for two hurt pitchers and a prospect (lets not forget they did the same with Farmer, but didn't or couldn't trade him), in what world is that a good move? Also didn't say signing Santana kept them from making the playoffs. 

You said "They lost nothing and gained nothing."

My point on signing a 37 year old player and not making the playoffs cost prospect/younger experience and possibly put them in a position this year where they are still trying to figure out what they have with certain players.  You know like everybody has aid about the starting pitchers they have signed in the past.

[KirbyDome89]

5 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Trading away a player that produced 0 WAR for $10.5M is one of the worst in team history?  I would say that it was a big nothing burger.  They lost nothing and gained nothing.  I guess if one argued the salary difference was used to sign Santana it was a significant net gain.

One of the worst in team history? Nope. Giving up surplus value at one position and getting nothing in return isn't a "nothing burger," though. It was a bad trade. Polanco flopping in Seattle takes away some of the sting, but at the end of the day, whether you want to call the swap asset mismanagement, poor scouting, or whatever, it all falls under the same umbrella. 

3 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

So, Polanco's production is irrelevant but the production of players coming back is relevant.  That's a convenient argument.  I agree that there is an assumed value at the time.  However, there is eventually a quantifiable value that is much more relevant in terms of assessing value than the forecasted values made by both sides make in a trade.  At the time of the trade, the vast majority of MLB reporters felt the twins got the better of that trade.   Now that we can measure the actual results, nothing was lost and nothing was gained.

I said at the time I would have preferred they trade Polanco for prospects and reinvest the savings.  Therefore, I agree they had an asset that should have returned something.  We also can't ignore that moving Polanco did free up dollars.  Obviously, there were other moves made so we can't tie the Sanatana signing strictly to moving Polanco.  However, moving Polanco did free up some dollars and the investment in Santana proved to be a much better move than keeping Polanco.  

 

Santana seems like a convenient stand in. Topa, DeSclafani, and Margot collectively cost what MN shed in moving Polanco. Why not use that trio instead? A "vast majority," as if there's any sort of actual consensus? The quantifiable value (Polanco's 2024 results) are more relevant than his value at the time he was dealt? It sounds like you're making the exact type of argument you're railing against.

[USAFChief]

Getting absolutely nothing for Polanco--predictable at the time--in a year you're claiming to be a postseason contender is an AWFUL trade.

And they got worse than nothing. The only redeeming quality Desclafani brought to the rotation was he never made it to opening day.

 

As I said on the day the trade was executed, all it did was make the team weaker.

 

Trade Polanco? Fine.

 

For crap? No. Absolutely not.

[Schmoeman5]

10 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

That's why they brought him back for potentially the same money.

The saddest thing about the Polanco saga is that they kept playing him at SS for years after his ankles said he couldn't & after injuring his knee (it was obvious by his performance, that he shouldn't be playing) they kept sending him out there until he could no longer take the field. That physical abuse has kept Polanco from sustaining any MLB success since. Polanco had the potential to be a MVP when he started his MLB career.

The Twins have a history of ruining players according to the good Dr. Polanco, AK, now Martin and Miranda. Did you see how they had Miranda at 3rd today? This is just a travesty. Total mismanagement. Every other club in the ML would salivate at the prosoect of playing Martin at 2B and raise havoc on the bases while scoring tons of runs and also playing top-notch defense. And Miranda should be kept off 3rd so he don't get hurt.

[Sjoski]

18 hours ago, stringer bell said:

That is the way arbitration works. Service time is part of the equation and Topa added a full year of service time. 

The MLBPA is so strong that if it arm-wrestled the owners, they’d not only win but also negotiate a no-trade clause, a signing bonus, and a player option for a rematch.

 

 

[h2oface]

12 hours ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Lopez had a 7.07 ERA in spring training last year and every starter had an ERA above 3.85, it is ridiculous to worry about your stars stats in spring training, unless of course there is an injury.

Agreed. I guess you missed the follow up….. in a reply just a couple posts later.......

"....And like they say for the vets, it doesn't matter, just stay healthy....."

[Sjoski]

20 hours ago, David HK said:

The Myth of Topa will go down in the canon along with the Ghost of Mahle and the Fable of DiSclafani...

Don't leave out Dyson and Paddock...

 

I heard Falvey only shops at Goodwill...
 he’s great at finding damaged goods!

[USAFChief]

1 hour ago, Sjoski said:

Don't leave out Dyson and Paddock...

 

I heard Falvey only shops at Goodwill...
 he’s great at finding damaged goods!

Who is this "Paddock" you speak of?

[NYCTK]

1 hour ago, Sjoski said:

The MLBPA is so strong that if it arm-wrestled the owners, they’d not only win but also negotiate a no-trade clause, a signing bonus, and a player option for a rematch.

 

 

They could have non tendered him. That would have made him a free agent and they then could have tried to sign him to a lesser contract. 

Instead the Twins have exclusive control on him and they had the right to go into arbitration to claim he wasn't worth anything over the minimum. 

Unions are good. 

[ashbury]

18 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Who is this "Paddock" you speak of?

Teammate of Julian.

[thelanges5]

Gabriel Gonzalez is at single A and could still provide some value in the Polanco trade. 

[Sjoski]

18 hours ago, ashbury said:

Who is this "Paddock" you speak of?

He's like a "dock" because he's on the team, but rarely in the action.

 

In 2025...he'll probably end up sitting on the "dock" watching another seadon go by.

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

17 hours ago, thelanges5 said:

Gabriel Gonzalez is at single A and could still provide some value in the Polanco trade. 

Some posters don't like any prospects. 

[USAFChief]

 

18 hours ago, thelanges5 said:

Gabriel Gonzalez is at single A and could still provide some value in the Polanco trade. 

Doubtful, but more importantly pretty irrelevant to the question of what the effects of the trade were on the 2024 Twins.

[KirbyDome89]

2 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Some posters don't like any prospects. 

How excited should posters be? Gonzalez struggled repeating A ball last year. His ability to stick in a corner OF spot is already in question at 21, he's not fast, and he showed almost no power last season. 

[Major League Ready]

15 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Some posters don't like any prospects. 

True but his stock has gone down.  The fact remains pretty much every baseball person that spoke or wrote of this trade said the Twins got the better end of the deal.  I think a fair assessment is that it was a good trade that didn't work out for either team,  Of course it's possible Gonzalez steps up.

I said at the time that the better play would have been straight up for Harry Ford but of course who knows of the Mariners would have accepted that trade.   

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, KirbyDome89 said:

How excited should posters be? Gonzalez struggled repeating A ball last year. His ability to stick in a corner OF spot is already in question at 21, he's not fast, and he showed almost no power last season. 

That wasn't my point.