What the Jorge Polanco Trade Can Teach Us About the Minnesota Twins’ Upcoming Offseason

[NYCTK]

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

So you cant find one person then.

I accept your surrender.

I don't have to find a single person to prove you're still clearly wrong. Which you are. 

 

[NYCTK]

1 hour ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Feel free to show me where I said it was a terrible trade. Actually though, point that part out or chill on the strawman...

GG can "save," the swap. Sure. 

The Twins parted out an asset, and the only remaining piece of value is GG. A suddenly cash strapped org pissed away valuable dollars on non-contributors, i.e. actively harmed the major league team during what were supposed to be contention years. Sorry, but trying to hand waive away the spending error as "buying a prospect," or pretending like the move was some future 4D chess swap that hinged on the Twins getting GG is a bridge too far. 

First paragraph was direct response to you, second paragraph was a general addition to the conversation. 

No strawman crafted nor intended to be read, as there are quite obviously others here who think the trade was terrible. And those people are, obviously, wrong. 

[The Great Hambino]

I wanted Polanco moved in the 2023 offseason. He was a true butcher in the field that point - remember, Correa's amazing throw home against the Blue Jays came off Polo completely whiffing on a chopper - and Lewis/Julien had shown actual promise at the ML level - it wasn't just theoretical like it would be with, say, Jenkins now.  Within the context of having to shed payroll while still trying to compete, moving on made sense at the time. 

But the return was weird.  A hodgepodge of high-risk players outside of their primes (both before and after), plus some cash savings.  A real four-nickels-for-a-quarter sort of deal.  Even if you limit the post-mortem analysis to Polanco's underwhelming 2024 performance (all his clutchy clutchness and .651 OPS didn't exactly take the Mariners to the promised land), it's a real stretch to call this trade a win so far for the Twins.

But what's interesting to me in this trade is its illustration of how tricky it can be to grade a trade even after the fact.  Do you count Polanco's 2025 performance in the trade grade?  He would've been a free agent after 2024, and after the year he had and the FA budget the Twins were working with, it's incredibly doubtful he would've been retained.  But did Seattle ultimately sign him for 2025 because they had the inside track with him already being in house?  What about the cash savings it generated?  Do you ding the Twins for ostensibly using it on Manny Margot, or should that be considered a separate transaction independent of the trade?  And how do you discount whatever Gonzalez brings to the table when it will take years to see the fruits of that aspect of the trade?

So can the Twins have been right to trade him, but still lose the trade?  I think so.  Do follow-up contracts count in trade evaluation?  I don't think they should, but I can understand the argument otherwise.  Is there much to learn from a trade that was so oddly-structured to begin with?  I don't know if there is

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Feel free to show me where I said it was a terrible trade. Actually though, point that part out or chill on the strawman...

GG can "save," the swap. Sure. 

The Twins parted out an asset, and the only remaining piece of value is GG. A suddenly cash strapped org pissed away valuable dollars on non-contributors, i.e. actively harmed the major league team during what were supposed to be contention years. Sorry, but trying to hand waive away the spending error as "buying a prospect," or pretending like the move was some future 4D chess swap that hinged on the Twins getting GG is a bridge too far. 

I think an objective person would find it reasonable to say the savings from that trade went to signing Carlos Santana who produced 2.9 WAR.  Now, assigning pluses and minuses to all the stuff is not an exact science and reasonable people can see things differently.  However, it's not fair to omit the Santana piece of this puzzle.  No doubt DeSclafani had an injury history that was suspect so let's call that out.  Let's also acknowledge that Sanatana was part of the puzzle.  Santana was miles better than Polanco and we also have a good prospect in GG.  

[KirbyDome89]

26 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

First paragraph was direct response to you, second paragraph was a general addition to the conversation. 

No strawman crafted nor intended to be read, as there are quite obviously others here who think the trade was terrible. And those people are, obviously, wrong. 

Oof, we'll disagree about what's being contributed. Anybody who isn't lock step with you is biased, "wrong," and/or a "weirdo." I'll pass on that policing. 

[KirbyDome89]

2 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I think an objective person would find it reasonable to say the savings from that trade went to signing Carlos Santana who produced 2.9 WAR.  Now, assigning pluses and minuses to all the stuff is not an exact science and reasonable people can see things differently.  However, it's not fair to omit the Santana piece of this puzzle.  No doubt DeSclafani had an injury history that was suspect so let's call that out.  Let's also acknowledge that Sanatana was part of the puzzle.  Santana was miles better than Polanco and we also have a good prospect in GG.  

Again with the objectivity thing huh. Are we redefining that word? 

Why does the leftover cash only go towards Santana? Why not Margot? Why not some combination of Jay Jackson, Okert, Staumont, ect? 

[Major League Ready]

34 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Again with the objectivity thing huh. Are we redefining that word? 

Why does the leftover cash only go towards Santana? Why not Margot? Why not some combination of Jay Jackson, Okert, Staumont, ect? 

I specifically noted that reasonable people might see this differently.  I see it as they had enough money to sign all of the people you mentioned because they traded Polanco.  Who knows which player that trade enabled but I have a feeling it was make or break for guys around $1M.  You also only mentioned the failures but not the piece that was a success.  That's not objective, IMO.

[KirbyDome89]

54 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I specifically noted that reasonable people might see this differently.  I see it as they had enough money to sign all of the people you mentioned because they traded Polanco.  Who knows which player that trade enabled but I have a feeling it was make or break for guys around $1M.  You also only mentioned the failures but not the piece that was a success.  That's not objective, IMO.

You're arguing the money was well spent. I'm offering counterpoints, so yes, I'm sure from your perspective my posts are "negative," but that has zero bearing on their objectivity. 

Credit for admitting that we have no clue how to divvy up the offseason spending, but since Margot by himself (plus the DeSclafani/Topa $$) was enough to zero out any Polanco savings it's best not to directly tie any of the FA additions to that leftover cash. I didn't claim Margot and use him as an example of MLB additions from that swap that actively hurt the roster, similarly, you don't get to claim Santana in an effort to clean up the lack of production.

[Mike Sixel]

9 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Agreed, they rolled the dice on DeSclafani staying healthy and they lost. They had to know that was a distinct possibility after he was shut down with an elbow injury the previous season. Topa put up -2 WPA while pitching the bulk of his innings in low leverage, and he missed an entire season. FWIW his bWAR was .4, which tied him with......Erasmo Ramirez......for the season. WAR is missing the mark here. 

You're not accounting for the damage done by the swap. The Twins were counting on DeSclafani being their 5th starter, instead, Varland imploded. Julien flopped at 2B. Topa was a negative contributor, or at best a nothing-burger. 

Polanco put up .3 war..... I'm not sure how that works have saved 2024. 

[Mike Sixel]

6 hours ago, The Great Hambino said:

I wanted Polanco moved in the 2023 offseason. He was a true butcher in the field that point - remember, Correa's amazing throw home against the Blue Jays came off Polo completely whiffing on a chopper - and Lewis/Julien had shown actual promise at the ML level - it wasn't just theoretical like it would be with, say, Jenkins now.  Within the context of having to shed payroll while still trying to compete, moving on made sense at the time. 

But the return was weird.  A hodgepodge of high-risk players outside of their primes (both before and after), plus some cash savings.  A real four-nickels-for-a-quarter sort of deal.  Even if you limit the post-mortem analysis to Polanco's underwhelming 2024 performance (all his clutchy clutchness and .651 OPS didn't exactly take the Mariners to the promised land), it's a real stretch to call this trade a win so far for the Twins.

But what's interesting to me in this trade is its illustration of how tricky it can be to grade a trade even after the fact.  Do you count Polanco's 2025 performance in the trade grade?  He would've been a free agent after 2024, and after the year he had and the FA budget the Twins were working with, it's incredibly doubtful he would've been retained.  But did Seattle ultimately sign him for 2025 because they had the inside track with him already being in house?  What about the cash savings it generated?  Do you ding the Twins for ostensibly using it on Manny Margot, or should that be considered a separate transaction independent of the trade?  And how do you discount whatever Gonzalez brings to the table when it will take years to see the fruits of that aspect of the trade?

So can the Twins have been right to trade him, but still lose the trade?  I think so.  Do follow-up contracts count in trade evaluation?  I don't think they should, but I can understand the argument otherwise.  Is there much to learn from a trade that was so oddly-structured to begin with?  I don't know if there is

After watching him put up .3 war they thought he'd be good? What inside knowledge would indicate that?

[Sjoski]

Doctor Gast... thanks for your excellent take above.
I couldn’t agree more — it’s all about vision and proper evaluations, isn’t it? That’s the job of a GM.

People here like to argue,  Seattle didn’t pick up Polanco’s option. Any team could’ve signed him. Like that validates Falvey’s trade idea. 

Yet, where did he land? Vision and evaluation brought him right back to the place that knew his value all along — Seattle.

[mluebker]

On 10/14/2025 at 5:39 AM, old nurse said:

So what does that make Seattle who declined Polanco’s option, then resigned him when no other team outbid their paltry offer?

Desperate?

[mluebker]

On 10/13/2025 at 3:22 PM, chpettit19 said:

Jorge Polanco is absolutely not an example of "a guy's performance means they'll have to pay him a decent salary" so they traded him.

There’s only one reason the Twins part company with a guy who’s playing well: They don’t want to pay him what he’s worth. Dress it up some other way if it makes you feel better, but they’re cheap and they don’t want to pay for performance. They’d rather try to fill the hole with a prospect who may or may not be ready, a cheaper free agent, or a guy who’s been DFA.

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, mluebker said:

There’s only one reason the Twins part company with a guy who’s playing well: They don’t want to pay him what he’s worth. Dress it up some other way if it makes you feel better, but they’re cheap and they don’t want to pay for performance. They’d rather try to fill the hole with a prospect who may or may not be ready, a cheaper free agent, or a guy who’s been DFA.

There is probably another plausible explanation.  For example,  Polanco had been very mediocre in the previous two seasons and had injury issues.  They had a rookie (Julien) who badly out-performed Polanco the year before.  They could replace him with a player who at the time looked considerably better and use the $10M to fill holes.   We commend Cleveland and Tampa for doing this but it's wrong for the Twins?  Of course, Julien turned into a pumpkin, but I don't know that I would fault the organization for believing they had a replacement or blame them for capturing that savings and spending it elsewhere.

I guess you point is still technically correct.  They didn't want to pay a guy $10M when they had a guy they could reasonably believe would do the job just as well for $750K.  They opted to spend the money instead on other players.  Is the motivation saving money when you spend it elsewhere.   

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, mluebker said:

There’s only one reason the Twins part company with a guy who’s playing well: They don’t want to pay him what he’s worth. Dress it up some other way if it makes you feel better, but they’re cheap and they don’t want to pay for performance. They’d rather try to fill the hole with a prospect who may or may not be ready, a cheaper free agent, or a guy who’s been DFA.

I didn't mean to upset you and cause you to feel the need to come back and respond a 2nd time without me having said anything else. I apologize. But at least get your facts straight. The Twins already had Polanco under contract for more years for less than he was worth according to his offensive and WAR numbers. They had him at a bargain.

Again, the Twins have plenty of things worth complaining about. And, yes, cheapness is absolutely one of them. But the Polanco trade is far more like the Luis Arraez deal than the Johan Santana deal. The Twins actually don't frequently trade guys about to get expensive; they tend to just let them walk for nothing. It's been one of their worst strategies as a franchise. But they traded Polanco because they felt they had a replacement for him and his money could be better spent elsewhere (they signed Santana to a deal that perfectly fit the remaining financial commitment after the trade just 7 days later). They were wrong in the sense that Julien immediately turned into a pumpkin. But Jorge himself was also terrible for the Mariners. But the Twins still spent that money. If they were trading him to avoid spending the money they wouldn't have replaced that spending. But they did. Because it wasn't a salary dumping trade, it was a salary reallocation trade.

 

[Cris E]

Polanco's value ended at the end of his contract in 2024. At that point anything he did was available to any team that wrote him the $7m check, and it could have been the Twins.  That original deal was a lot of money going to a guy that was battling a lot of injuries and not fielding well at all. Not much value needed to be realized for shedding the $10.5m spent on 118 games of 92 OPS+ to be a good idea. 

But even if the immediate dump of Polanco's salary was breakeven it was a win because it provided them with the freedom to afford the rest of the roster.  You want to evaluate the rest of the transactions separately that's fine, but then you do all of them in a big bowl since none of them can be separated and the $6-7m or whatever was saved gets its own line item. It mattered a lot in the bigger picture of that off-season. 

[Danchat]

Looks to me like it was a sound idea to trade Polanco, given his declining defense / health and then he had a poor 2024 season. As Hambino said, the package they took back was a strange one, trying to mix some marginal bullpen and rotation help with a prospect who was by far the most valuable part of the deal.

Not sure why anyone would lump his 2025 season in there when he hit the open market and any other team could have signed him away, and if that happened we wouldn't count that against the trade. Nothing was stopping us from bringing him back.

I'm interested to see what Gonzalez can do in the majors... still odd that he was the most valuable part of the trade, a 20 year old outfielder who was years away from helping the team. In the context of the 2024 season it didn't help the team and I think Falvey did a poor job in the short term. Long term, well, they already have a bunch of OF prospects and added more at the 2025 deadline. At the time of the trade I wondered if they'd flip Gonzalez for a veteran to help the 2024 roster, and I stand by that. So on paper, getting Gonzalez and change for one year of Polanco out of his prime is a good move, but the move didn't synergize with what Falvey was doing with the rest of the roster. 

[Cris E]

2 hours ago, mluebker said:

There’s only one reason the Twins part company with a guy who’s playing well: They don’t want to pay him what he’s worth. Dress it up some other way if it makes you feel better, but they’re cheap and they don’t want to pay for performance. They’d rather try to fill the hole with a prospect who may or may not be ready, a cheaper free agent, or a guy who’s been DFA.

Well that's not true at all, or it's obviously true all the time.

"What he's worth" is a bogus phrase that hides all the possibilities of injury, positional scarcity, budget games and a host of other factors and also ignore point of view.  Polanco wasn't "worth" $10m to them but he was to you, so who is wrong? If the budget is smaller than you'd like then you can't have Polanco and a new 1B, so how does worth get calculated if Polanco doesn't play first? 

Meanwhile they've paid a bunch of guys in recent years. You may not like the outcomes, but they have tried to pay for performance as evidenced by the number of expensive deals they've inked. They went and got Sonny Grey but didn't want to re-up him for top dollar, which I believe was the right move based on what STL got from him over the past couple years. They kept Lopez and he's been injured but good. Buxton was signed for good money adjusted for his limited playing time, which was fair to both sides. Correa was an aspirational signing, but they threw down for him and paid a lot of money for almost four years. Donaldson was a colossal *ss but he hit homeruns so they paid him (until he was just too awful to keep, and then they magically got the Yankees to pay him.)  

You're frustrated and it's leading to over-broad generalizations that just aren't true.  Complain about the budget decisions rather than the outcomes of them. That's rooted in truth.

[Fred]

On 10/13/2025 at 9:19 PM, Sjoski said:

Hate? How you extract that is baffling. 

What people on this site hate is:

● wasted trades,

● wasted draft picks,

● wasted millions on the Gallos, Correas and Donaldsons on Falvey’s radar.

 

And continually "trading for the future". The optics look like whenever a prospect works out and they will have to pay him, they trade him for more prospects. I know they try occasionally (Correa, Donaldson), but I feel like they keep holding up the "shining future" for the fans, and they think that should be enough for the fans to keep filling the seats.

[Sjoski]

1 hour ago, Fred said:

And continually "trading for the future".

 Ironic that Jorge Polanco’s streak of three consecutive game-winning hits in the postseason is rivaled only by Delmon Young’s 2012 run ( 4 games )  — both are ex-Twins.

[KirbyDome89]

16 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Polanco put up .3 war..... I'm not sure how that works have saved 2024. 

Ok? What single player was stopping a historic collapse? I mean why on earth is that the bar to clear? 

Julien -.2 WAR in 2024

Varland 7.61 ERA in 2024

Topa was a nothing-burger overall but absolutely in 2024

They turned one replacement level roster spot into 2 sub replacement level roster spots...

[Riverbrian]

5 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Ok? What single player was stopping a historic collapse? I mean why on earth is that the bar to clear? 

Julien -.2 WAR in 2024

Varland 7.61 ERA in 2024

Topa was a nothing-burger overall but absolutely in 2024

They turned one replacement level roster spot into 2 sub replacement level roster spots...

I believe you are looking at this correctly. 

Polanco is one roster spot. Whatever his 2024 was... it was... but in the end it's one roster spot. 

On the other hand and the point you are making.

His trade potentially manifested into Julien, DeSclafini, Topa, Margot and Yes... Santana as well. 

That's two sub par performance roster spots, two wasted 40 man spots and Yes... Santana did a decent job but was one year and gone. 

  

[Mike Sixel]

3 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Ok? What single player was stopping a historic collapse? I mean why on earth is that the bar to clear? 

Julien -.2 WAR in 2024

Varland 7.61 ERA in 2024

Topa was a nothing-burger overall but absolutely in 2024

They turned one replacement level roster spot into 2 sub replacement level roster spots...

My point is, they didn't miss anything by him not being there.  Not that there weren't worse players. I get it. For many people here, trading the present for the future is always wrong.

[dxpavelka]

On 10/13/2025 at 1:58 PM, Sjoski said:

Isn't Seattle considering it a huge trade win? Guess it comes down to what you consider a win? 

Winning ball games = Seattle's POV

Saving $$$ = Twins POV

Seattle is getting results NOW but only because they signed Polanco to a 1 year deal for $3 million less than last year.  And they didn't sign him until February and he hit .183 in May & June so what he is doing now was never a slam dunk.  Won't even bring up the fact that he hit .190 in the 2023 post-season.  Were we seeing him as an integral part of the future worthy of ten and a half million dollars at that point?

 

[mluebker]

18 hours ago, Cris E said:

What he's worth" is a bogus phrase that hides all the possibilities of injury, positional scarcity, budget games and a host of other factors and also ignore point of view. 

Long essay to say you have a different opinion. Okay, cool. But that’s all we have when when we talk baseball—pretending they’re right and wrong don’t give them any more weight.

[mluebker]

20 hours ago, Cris E said:

But even if the immediate dump of Polanco's salary was breakeven it was a win because it provided them with the freedom to afford the rest of the roster. 

It was and it is emblematic of how the Twins part ways with guys who are playing better than those they find to replace them.

Rocco supposedly was extended this past year as well, and now he’s looking for a job, too, so that doesn’t mean much. Extensions don’t seem to foreshadow their intentions. Either way, extending guys they shouldn’t might be another thing to add to the list of what’s wrong with how Falvey and his masters do business. They can’t see the future any better than you or I, but you’d hope they wouldn’t keep repeating the errors of the past.

[mluebker]

20 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

I didn't mean to upset you and cause you to feel the need to come back and respond a 2nd time without me having said anything else. I apologize. But at least get your facts straight.

My facts are straight—I just draw different conclusions from them than yours. Hope that doesn’t upset you.

[Riverbrian]

On 10/15/2025 at 11:07 AM, chpettit19 said:

Because it wasn't a salary dumping trade, it was a salary reallocation trade.

 

I don't see any other way to look at it. In my opinion... It was a... budget was cut, there was no money left to work with so they moved money around in a salary reallocation trade. 

January 29, 2024.

They trade Polanco to Seattle. Jorge was due 10.5 for 2024 plus a .750 buyout. So... Let's say 11.25 Million off the books. 

They received DeSclafini and 8 million in cash to cover two thirds of the 12 million DeScalfini was due in 2024. Spending 4 million plus Topa at 1.25 million. Leaving 6 million left to reallocate. 

February 7... They sign Carlos Santana to a one year 5.25 million dollars. Leaving .75 million to reallocate. 

and they concluded the off-season on February 26 with the Noah Miller for Manual Margot deal. The Dodgers sent 6 million to cover the 10 million owed to Margot and also included 2 million for his buyout. 

All the money was reallocated... Twins payroll went up about 1.25 million after the deal. 

Polanco had a bad year in Seattle... Very un-Polanco like with a 92 OPS+ in Seattle.

Prior to the trade he was 111, 117 and 125 so anyone who says they saw the 92 coming... I'm not really listening to them. His replacements at 2B was Julien and Farmer (6M) who produced 74 and 82 OPS+ respectively.

In hindsight... If we kept Polanco and he performed the same in Minnesota... we were still better off at 2B but we can't just look at this thing from one player compared to one player. The trade had roster and budget implications involving everybody listed in this post.

If we don't trade Polanco, We don't get DeSclafini, Topa, Santana, Margot, we don't utilize Julien and Farmer as much.    

Polanco clearly had trade value because the Mariners not only picked up his 11.25 million... plus the 4 million they sent (4 Million of the 8 Million they sent was acquired in a previous DeSclafini trade making it two teams paying 4 million for him not to pitch for them) and they included a top 100 prospect (What's the Money Value of a top 100 Prospect?)and a reliever coming off a decent year.

If you factor in GG and Topa... It isn't out of line to say that it was at least 20 million in value to acquire Polanco. That 20 million guess only matters in regards to the value that Polanco had at the time of the deal. It only matters to show that Polanco was not chopped liver when he was traded.  

That Value that Polanco had at the time of the deal leads to the crux of my issue with the trade. We were coming off a playoff win. In my opinion... it just wasn't the time to take a major league hitter and divide him into multiple parts. 

The Mariners paid a lot for him but that's the price you pay for a proven major league hitter. 

To me the question boils down to one thing. Would you rather have one good player or 4 lesser pieces. I'll take the one good player in an off-season following a playoff series win for a franchise that had been starving for playoff wins going on decades.   

In my opinion... The Polanco trade was a pivot point for this franchise. 

And I'll continue to say... If GG pans out... We may indeed win this trade. Until then... We lost the deal. 

[USAFChief]

49 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I don't see any other way to look at it. In my opinion... It was a... budget was cut, there was no money left to work with so they moved money around in a salary reallocation trade. 

January 29, 2024.

They trade Polanco to Seattle. Jorge was due 10.5 for 2024 plus a .750 buyout. So... Let's say 11.25 Million off the books. 

They received DeSclafini and 8 million in cash to cover two thirds of the 12 million DeScalfini was due in 2024. Spending 4 million plus Topa at 1.25 million. Leaving 6 million left to reallocate. 

February 7... They sign Carlos Santana to a one year 5.25 million dollars. Leaving .75 million to reallocate. 

and they concluded the off-season on February 26 with the Noah Miller for Manual Margot deal. The Dodgers sent 6 million to cover the 10 million owed to Margot and also included 2 million for his buyout. 

All the money was reallocated... Twins payroll went up about 1.25 million after the deal. 

Polanco had a bad year in Seattle... Very un-Polanco like with a 92 OPS+ in Seattle.

Prior to the trade he was 111, 117 and 125 so anyone who says they saw the 92 coming... I'm not really listening to them. His replacements at 2B was Julien and Farmer (6M) who produced 74 and 82 OPS+ respectively.

In hindsight... If we kept Polanco and he performed the same in Minnesota... we were still better off at 2B but we can't just look at this thing from one player compared to one player. The trade had roster and budget implications involving everybody listed in this post.

If we don't trade Polanco, We don't get DeSclafini, Topa, Santana, Margot, we don't utilize Julien and Farmer as much.    

Polanco clearly had trade value because the Mariners not only picked up his 11.25 million... plus the 4 million they sent (4 Million of the 8 Million they got to acquire DeSclafini in the first place and included a top 100 prospect and a reliever coming off a decent year.

If you factor in GG and Topa... It isn't out of line to say that it was at least 20 million in value to acquire Polanco. That 20 million guess only matters in regards to the value that Polanco had at the time of the deal. 

That Value that Polanco had at the time of the deal leads to the crux of my issue with the trade. We were coming off a playoff win. In my opinion... it just wasn't the time to take a major league hitter and divide him into multiple parts. 

The Mariners paid a lot for him but that's the price you pay for a proven major league hitter. 

To me the question boils down to one thing. Would you rather have one good player or 4 lesser pieces. I'll take the one good player in an off-season following a playoff series win for a franchise that had been starving for playoff wins going on decades.   

In my opinion... The Polanco trade was a pivot point for this franchise. 

And I'll continue to say... If GG pans out... We may indeed win this trade. Until then... We lost the deal. 

As I said on the day the trade happened, it made the Twins weaker.

 

[Riverbrian]

48 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

As I said on the day the trade happened, it made the Twins weaker.

 

Some will argue that Santana more than replaced Polanco's 2024 production. Santana did that using hindsight. No front office would have been able to predict that. The fact that Seattle paid around 20 million  (my estimate with no accuracy implied) in value to acquire Polanco and Santana signed for 5 tells you that no front office would have been able to predict that Santana was going to out perform Polanco in 2024.  

However, it just can't be looked at as one for one since multiple roster spots were involved... including two players that 3 teams were paying approximately 14 million dollars TO NOT PLAY FOR THEM.

The multiple roster spots involved as it happened made the team weaker on paper. In hindsight... it also made the team weaker. Margot alone did more damage than the simplicity of his numbers.   

But... for me... it just comes down to the time the trade was made. What should the team have expected out of Polanco in 2024 at the time of the trade?  

A good hitter is what should have been expected. That's why Seattle gave up what the gave up to acquire him. 

What was the current context of the team at the time of the trade?

Coming off a playoff series win with the Blue Jays is the answer.  

I would have kept Polanco believing that he was going to be a good hitter when good hitting would help a team in contention.

I wouldn't have traded for Margot believing that he wasn't going to be a good hitter and he was just going to compromise future development of the young left handed hitters. 

If Santana was necessary. OK... Fine... Spend the 5.25 million. It's only 4 million more than the 1.25 million they spent after the trade. If the ownership says 5.25 million is too much but 1.25 million is OK. Than don't sign Santana. We were seriously talking Log Jam's in the infield at the time. I laugh at log jam talk. There is no such thing but the sentiment on this board was that we had infielders coming out of ears so Polanco was expendable.  

However... the Santana signing was just going to push Kirilloff into the OF and off into the distance as a 1B candidate. No way of knowing that Kirilloff was about to retire at the time of the Santana signing but the scar is still visible today. It's a 1st baseman sized scar as we prepare for the 2026 season.

It might cost us Joe Ryan to fix the scar.