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

[KirbyDome89]

19 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

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. 

  

They parted out an asset, and it failed at the MLB level. Holding out hope that GG "saves," the swap is a defensible position, at least right now, but as you already pointed out, this was a team coming off their first playoff Ws in 2 decades, and they made themselves worse in the interim.  

[KirbyDome89]

17 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

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.

Ok, but this was a team that was in a contention window, coming off their first postseason Ws in 20+ years. I don't think that's a great time to damage your major league product for potential future gains but YMMV. 

[Mike Sixel]

3 hours 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 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. 

If anyone thought Julien would forget how to hit before it happened, well, no one did. No one. Had he been half the player he was the year before, he'd have been above average......In one post you argue they shouldn't have given up on Kiriloff (moving him to the OF) and in this one, you argue they shouldn't have trusted Julien....

[Mike Sixel]

3 hours 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 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. 

If anyone thought Julien would forget how to hit before it happened, well, no one did. No one. Had he been half the player he was the year before, he'd have been above average......In one post you argue they shouldn't have given up on Kiriloff (moving him to the OF) and in this one, you argue they shouldn't have trusted Julien....

[Mike Sixel]

4 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Ok, but this was a team that was in a contention window, coming off their first postseason Ws in 20+ years. I don't think that's a great time to damage your major league product for potential future gains but YMMV. 

Did you think Julien would go from 2.7 fwar to zero? Or did you think he could be the 2B of the future?

As for the timing, I agree! But the ownership clearly pivoted on the FO, or the FO would not have done the things they did the year before. I'm not sure how to hold the FO accountable for that. They bet on Julien being nearly as good (or better?) than he was the year before. It turned out to be a bad bet, but at some point, you have to trust your prospects.

Polanco wasn't even worth .5 fWAR last year. He was a FA this year, and took a 40% pay cut. "proven hitters" don't always hit.

[The Great Hambino]

17 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Ok, but this was a team that was in a contention window, coming off their first postseason Ws in 20+ years. I don't think that's a great time to damage your major league product for potential future gains but YMMV. 

I think they tried to address both present and future gains in the trade, they just did a really poor job of identifying the present pieces.

They got five pieces back in the trade.  Three were for the present (Topa, DeSclafani, $4MM to spend) and two were for the future (Gonzalez, Bowen).  On paper, there was some logic in reallocating current resources given how Polanco, Lewis, and Julien all looked at the end of 2023.  But in an effort to plug multiple present holes, they spread the return too thin and as a result, didn't plug any.  If the present pieces of the return had been more concentrated on a more reliable single piece as opposed to a questionable reliever, a giant red flag of a starter, and a utilityman's worth of cash, that could've worked out better for them in 2024.  They would've been better served doing something that more resembled the Arraez/Lopez trade.

As I said earlier, I think you can say that they were justified in moving Polanco even within a contention window, but also botched identifying the return.  Both things can be true

[Riverbrian]

12 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

If anyone thought Julien would forget how to hit before it happened, well, no one did. No one. Had he been half the player he was the year before, he'd have been above average......In one post you argue they shouldn't have given up on Kiriloff (moving him to the OF) and in this one, you argue they shouldn't have trusted Julien....

That's not what I'm saying. 

I've said multiple times...  There is no such thing as a log jam. There is room on the roster for multiple talented players. Multiple talented players is something every team should strive for... not reduce at the mere perception of it. Players are going to struggle, players are going to get hurt. I'm rather insistent that roster building goes beyond 9 players while 10 through 13 are some scrubs that we like to call bench. No one will ever be able to move me off of that and it's frankly beyond me that people are even willing to argue it. It took exactly one game for Royce Lewis to go down for two months. 

I argued at the time that there was room on the roster for Polanco and Julien. I'm prepared to make that same argument today even while knowing what actually happened in 2024 and I've made that argument multiple times in between this specific Polanco trade and today concerning other players and scenarios. Yep.. Lee was coming to... We would have had room for Lee, Polanco and Julien and Farmer. Oddly... none of those 4 players worked out at all. 

We've seen approximately Zero teams go through 162 games with the same 9 players performing to expectation and staying healthy over the course of the season. That's zero over the past 5 million years. 

On Kirilloff... I'm saying specifically. The signing of Santana moved Kirilloff off first base. Kirilloff was hurt for most of the year but when Kirilloff played and he had a ****** year. He spent the majority of his time in the OF. 31 games in the OF, 14 games at DH and 12 games at 1B and he retired following the season. 

Hindsight says... Who Cares... Kirilloff sucked. He's out of baseball. 

Without the benefit of hindsight. There would be no prediction of his eminent retirement. Just the expectation of a former first round draft pick.

At the time of the Santana signing which is made possible in part by the Polanco trade. They said... we will sign this 38 year old and give him the full time job at 1B. Kirilloff and whatever he will become in the future will be pushed into the OF primarily... which is fine but it's also where he joins Margot, Martin, Larnach and Wallner and Santana leaves after the year and he is replaced by France and France is replaced by ??? 

I don't know who plays 1B in 2026 or 2027 but it might cost us Joe Ryan.

Yes... we would still be in this 1B hole if Santana didn't take over 1B because Kirilloff vanished. But, it's another example of this front office punting youth for a one year fix. 

 

 

[KirbyDome89]

5 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Did you think Julien would go from 2.7 fwar to zero? Or did you think he could be the 2B of the future?

As for the timing, I agree! But the ownership clearly pivoted on the FO, or the FO would not have done the things they did the year before. I'm not sure how to hold the FO accountable for that. They bet on Julien being nearly as good (or better?) than he was the year before. It turned out to be a bad bet, but at some point, you have to trust your prospects.

Polanco wasn't even worth .5 fWAR last year. He was a FA this year, and took a 40% pay cut. "proven hitters" don't always hit.

Did I see Julien completely collapsing? No. Did I view him as the 2B of the future? Also, no. I was cautiously optimistic about a guy who had played half a season up to that point. I never thought he was even an ok defender, and a bat only guy is going to have a tough time sticking. If you're asking whether I was against moving Polanco, the answer is no. I think he was an underrated/underappreciated player during his tenure, and he was a personal favorite, but I could've lived with Julien's subpar defense at 2B if he was going to hit.  

I don't hold the FO accountable for the budget. I do hold them accountable for how they choose to allocate that budget. Things tightened up, the team needed to eat, and the FO bought magic beans. Sure, I don't disagree that you need to give younger guys opportunities but look at where they spent money that offseason. DeSclafani, another Falvey favorite (fringe back end SP type,) was brought in to bump Varland, which I guess might've worked out because Varland was awful but that's a role you should be able to rotate young arms through. Topa was a non-factor and then this season pitched primarily low leverage innings at the back end of the bullpen, again, a role ideal for getting younger guys innings. They spent $$ on Okert, Jay Jackson, and Josh Staumont, all of whom got some run until the wheels completely fell off. Margot was a ****ing disaster but he stuck around all year. Even the lone success, Santana, was a 38 year old 1B on a rebound deal. Julien was the only youth move, and even that came with an overly expensive platoon handcuff in Farmer.

They weren't selling the .5 fWAR version of Polanco. 

[KirbyDome89]

21 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

I think they tried to address both present and future gains in the trade, they just did a really poor job of identifying the present pieces.

They got five pieces back in the trade.  Three were for the present (Topa, DeSclafani, $4MM to spend) and two were for the future (Gonzalez, Bowen).  On paper, there was some logic in reallocating current resources given how Polanco, Lewis, and Julien all looked at the end of 2023.  But in an effort to plug multiple present holes, they spread the return too thin and as a result, didn't plug any.  If the present pieces of the return had been more concentrated on a more reliable single piece as opposed to a questionable reliever, a giant red flag of a starter, and a utilityman's worth of cash, that could've worked out better for them in 2024.  They would've been better served doing something that more resembled the Arraez/Lopez trade.

As I said earlier, I think you can say that they were justified in moving Polanco even within a contention window, but also botched identifying the return.  Both things can be true

The MLB return was a flop. That's undeniable. 

Concur, I would've much rather had one player of equal value to Polanco as opposed to parting him out.

Moving Polanco in and of itself isn't the issue. Botching the return + failing to evaluate what you already had on the roster helped cut short whatever hopes this franchise had of competing the last few years. 

[Riverbrian]

15 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

The MLB return was a flop. That's undeniable. 

Concur, I would've much rather had one player of equal value to Polanco as opposed to parting him out.

Moving Polanco in and of itself isn't the issue. Botching the return + failing to evaluate what you already had on the roster helped cut short whatever hopes this franchise had of competing the last few years. 

You are spot on. The Polanco trade wasn't the problem... it's the 4 lesser pieces that we divided Polanco into that was the problem. 

I honestly would have felt better if the Twins would have simply gotten nothing but prospects in the deal. I wouldn't have been happy because I saw Polanco as a key piece to what should have been a contending team.

But... I would have been happier (still not happy) because it would have been potentially better than what we spent the Polanco money on. 

 

[Sjoski]

8 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

  Won't even bring up the fact that he hit .190 in the 2023 post-season.

Can you repeat the part about not bringing up the fact part?

 

[dxpavelka]

4 hours ago, Sjoski said:

Can you repeat the part about not bringing up the fact part?

 

Can't bury the lead