Reviewing the Jorge Polanco Trade

9 hours ago, yeahyabetcha said:

Was there a better offer?

Well their was always the option of not picking up Polanco's option and just letting him go.

20 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

The Twins could have simply not tendered Farmer and Thielbar to save money. Falvey bungled the trade market. Yes, Polanco has had a rough year but then again the Twins could have drafted Mike Trout. The trade is over as is that draft.

What do the Twins have in Topa, Gonazalez, and Bowen? This is a hard guess. Desclafani is done. Topa is likely facing high odds, Bowen is totally a guess, and Gonzalez is at best a future PH/DH. Last week I saw him wait until a fly ball landed before he moved. He didn't lose it. He just waddled over ten feet picked it up and threw it in. The announcer simply said, "Wow". The telecast then showed two replays. Gabriel does have a good arm. Maybe he can pitch.

My main objection to the trade was that the Twins did not improve their team. As for the money? Well, it seemed easy last winter to nontender Farmer ($6.3M) and Thielbar ($3.3M). Then subtract DeSclafani ($4M) and Topa ($1.2M) and keep Polanco = money saved. Always expected a trade but wanted an improvement to the team. The Twins lost this trade, big time.

There were a few people who advocated for keeping Polanco.  Others said we had a few better options at 2B and the money should be spent on pitching.  I don't know how you conclude the team would have been better off with Polanco.  He is a replacement level player at this point.  His salary went to signing Santana, DeSclafani, and Margot.  DeSclafani netted nothing but Santana has definitely made this team better and while Margot has sucked as a PH, he will be an asset starting against LHP in the playoffs.

Farmer and Thielbar were completely independent decisions.  Farmer had played an important role in the past and there was no reason to believe he would fall off a cliff.  That said, I said at the time I would move them and spent the money on pitching.

I just don't agree with the concept that the only trade that's a good trade is one that makes the current team better.  Cleveland has produced more war over the past two decades from players acquired as prospects than they have produced from the draft.  Falvey is following Tampa's lead.  They make trades like this one where the current team is better off or not worse off while collecting assets that make future teams better.  

I thought the Twins got a lot in return for Polanco. Obviously the Twins came out on top in this trade, despite continuing their track record of acquiring injured pitchers. How Bowen and Gonzalez develop will determine how this trade turns out. And maybe Topa helps next year. Dumping Polanco’s salary was the reason for the trade, and his production has been poor this year anyway. 

20 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

My hope is they don’t double down and tender an offer to Topa in arbitration. He will be 34 and the injury and age will add to the decline. He doesn’t have any space for decline. It is unreasonable to think he will perform anywhere near his lone good major league season.

It doesn’t matter if the trade was a loss for the Mariners. The trade did not improve the 2024 Twins. It won’t improve the 2025 Twins. If they aren’t going to compete for free agents, they need to utilize their trade assets better.

At age 34 with an injury history Topa should be smart enough to grab any offer the Twins make. The alternative would probably be a minor league deal 

Let's remember, Gonzalez is about 2 years younger than the average A+ player. Another year in A+, without the 2 month injury,  might get him back in sync. He will still be only 21 next year and closer to the average age in the league.

21 hours ago, mikelink45 said:

Neither team won - trades can't be judged in a partial season unless one of the assets just goes off as a star.   Right now we would be saying bench Polanco based on his 204 average and 0.0 WAR, but we also don't know if the trade set him back mentally.  I just can't imagine what I would have done if I had been traded to another state during any of my career jobs.  Baseball is a strange occupation as Curt Flood tried to point out.  

In any other profession we can choose to leave, choose to stay, or choose the other company we would work for.

Both teams got what they were looking for.   Twins dumped a salary an opened up 2nd for Julien.    Mariners got a 2nd baseman they wanted.     It hasn't worked out for either side, but I bet they would both do it again.

6 hours ago, USAFChief said:

I thought it was obvious at the time of the trade it didn't make the Twins better. 

That has been proven in spades. 

 

How is the team not better with Santana VS Polanco?  I guess you just ignore the player acquired with those funds if it suits your narrative.  Also, your position back then was that it was obvious the team would be better with Polanco and that has been proven false in spades.  

Seattle could be the winner this year if Polonco has a good 6 weeks that are left in the season and they make the playoffs. But the Twins will be winners in the long term because they shed money that went elsewhere to help and may have 2 major leaguers for next year if they get over their injuries. And you never know about the minor leaguers. We'll see. I liked Polonco but he hasn't done much this year.

You all are crazy.

I love Polanco.  But he plays a position of great depth for us.  Deal from surplus.

He has been pretty bad this year.  We would hate to have him playing for us right now.  I know I would.

We have Topa 2 years control and 1 or 2 decent prospects.  And money i will equate with this year's Santana.  Valued against the NEGATIVE impact Polo has been.  And it's likely he has a new team next year, so NO future value.  

How is this even a discusssion?  

This is a 10-1 advantage for the Twins.  

14 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Now you're just making things up.

My position, from the day the Twins announced the trade, has been it made the Twins weaker in 2024. I understood the need to shed salary. But they got hosed. I posted the same in the thread announcing the deal. I said DeSclafani was worse than nothing, Topa a Longshot to help at all, and two far off minor leaguers don't help the 2024 team.

I haven't varied off that stance since January.

The original trade thread was on January 29, if you'd care to review.

Might be a good reminder of YOUR positions on that day, too.

 

 

And your position was wrong.  It most certainly did not make the Twins weaker in 2024.   I know exactly what my position was because I took a lot of grief from a handful of people that insisted it was a no brainer that losing Polanco was going to be horrible.   The return turned out to be a worst-case scenario for 2024 and it still did not hurt the team.  I also don't advocate running the team with only the present year in mind.  That's a really good way to assure you will be bad often.

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

I'd accept your apology for lying about what I said, but I can't, since you didn't. 

18 hours ago you said "My position, from the day the Twins announced the trade, has been it made the Twins weaker in 2024"  You were wrong.  I would accept your admission you were wrong but you didn't give it.  We are all going to be wrong in these predictions.  I thought Julien would be an above average player.  Maybe he will be someday but as of this moment I was wrong.

On 8/12/2024 at 8:08 AM, Major League Ready said:

Falvey is following Tampa's lead. 

He's trying but I think the part Falvey missed was trading a great player just as you see they are declining (whether it's too many miles on his legs, injuries piling up, age, etc.) and not wait until everyone sees the decline. Tampa does this all the time. Not many of us were wanting a Polanco trade a year plus before it happened, but there were a few. We would have got so much more at that time (but don't ask me the number of times I have said trade/cut XX player and now they are doing great - like Griffin Jax).

On 8/12/2024 at 9:43 AM, USAFChief said:

I thought it was obvious at the time of the trade it didn't make the Twins better. 

That has been proven in spades. 

 

It has been proven in spades? Thats just based on your opinion which is leaving meat on the bone.

Assuming you're just referring to the Twins not being better in 2024. Subtracting Polanco for a youth movement of Julien, Lee, Martin, and giving more chances to Castro has helped quite a bit. The money saved from his contract and an extra roster spot offensively is what brought in Santana which has been a really good investment given his defense, offense and experience.

5 hours ago, FlyingFinn said:

He's trying but I think the part Falvey missed was trading a great player just as you see they are declining (whether it's too many miles on his legs, injuries piling up, age, etc.) and not wait until everyone sees the decline. Tampa does this all the time. Not many of us were wanting a Polanco trade a year plus before it happened, but there were a few. We would have got so much more at that time (but don't ask me the number of times I have said trade/cut XX player and now they are doing great - like Griffin Jax).

I meant that Tampa has done quite a few deals where they move a player in a depth position and get some major league contribution and prospects.   Quite a few fans are very focused on the benefits of a trade like this one being immediate.  Those fans don't like these deals but Tampa and Cleveland have used this model to significantly outperform other organizations anywhere near their revenue level.  They have literally produced more WAR from players acquired as prospects than they have the draft.  

If they had kept Polanco, he is playing even if he sucks.  Their other options provide greater flexibility and therefore a higher probability of success.  If Julien sucks, they can send him down.   Castro is option 2.  If Lee proves ready they can utilize Castro in a utility role and play Lee at 2B.  If Miranda bounces back they play him at 3rd and Lewis to 2nd was also an option.  I would bet they felt more confident in getting production out of that group vs Polanco alone.  Of course, they also netted $9.75M to be invested elsewhere.  Then, there was DeScalfani.   He was a risk but they may just have seen that potential contribution as a bonus.  

I think they projected this trade as a net gain.  If they got lucky with DeSclafani an even better net and the prospects were a bonus.