TRADE: Twins Send Jorge Polanco to Mariners in Five-Player Deal

10 hours ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

I don't think you can really interpret prospect rankings like that.  They are more like "buckets" that break down into relative levels.  I would say a top 20 is a little better than a top 50 is a little better than a top 75. . . etc., but the differences between those prospects after the very top level is extremely subjective and volatile.  As far as "low 100 types", we only have three that beat that on paper, so it's not something to dismiss easily.

Essentially it all depends on where the final prospect ranking ends up. They are both young player being ranked while playing in the low minors. If their rankings don’t go up the most likely outcome is bust. 

7 minutes ago, harmony55 said:

the Seattle package likely topped any other proposed trade for Polanco

I'm pretty certain of that. The Twins did get the best possible package for Polanco. I'm surprised they were able to get that much considering there weren't many bidders besides Seattle. Great job getting Trader Jerry to bid against himself.

Market rate starting pitcher (and they obviously needed one)

Cheap, good reliever with 3 years of arbitration salaries (another obvious need)

Top 100 prospect outfielder (The Twins know how to scout outfielders)

Throw-in pitching prospect

$8M 

It's getting an extra $8M from a mid-market team that really puts this one over the top for me. It was fair before they added the cash.

19 minutes ago, LewFordLives said:

I know you're joking, but if he shows up to Ft Myers and his elbow is still giving him problems, I hope they cut bait and not keep sending him out there to get shelled.

Joking but not joking if he is a joke.  I will rant about DFA’ng if he sucks.  Im starting to think this trade is mostly about $$$$. 
our farm can replace polo in 24. 
the $8M can buy Desclafanti’s replacement if he sucks. 

2 hours ago, SteveLV said:

Like last season, I think in fairness we need to wait until all the dust settles before we judge the off-season.

Objectively this makes the team weaker for 2024, but if Lee comes up and performs, unclogs the infield.  It nets the Twins about $5M in cap relief, and it does bolster the bullpen.

First, I hope there is some type of injury protection for one or both of the pitchers coming over.  At least a PTBNL

Second, I believe the Twins are not done with trades. Still hope they move assets to the Marlins for solid SP help.  My dream is both a controllable SP and Alcantara, sending some salary (Farmer? Kepler?) along with prospects to Miami, the salary to offset Alcantara's contract while he rehabs in 2024.

I hope and surmise the Twins are not done wheeling and dealing at this point.

I'm skeptical, but this is my hope as well. This FO has shown it will flip players in the past. The reason for my skepticism is what it's been all off-season, I don't think teams are willing to let go of quality SP for anything less than a mint.

23 minutes ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

That’s interesting, thanks. I will make the comparison that trying to acquire that fielding skill as an adult might be a bit like learning a language as an adult or trying to pick up a new instrument. You can practice enough to get to a level where you can get by, and enjoy yourself, and might experience a few graceful moments, but that inherent fluency will never be there. Julien could take a million ground balls at this point and many of us still would not trust him. I think Julien is a terrible pairing for Correa (or conversely, Correa is great for Julien). If Julien’s bat is good enough, he might be able to carve out a few season in the field like Schwarber did. Otherwise I see Julien as a guy with a DH-PH career, nothing wrong with that.

I should've said nous verrons

52 minutes ago, Fatbat said:

I can think of 130M reasons 

That the Twins won’t give him. 

13 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

I'm pretty certain of that. The Twins did get the best possible package for Polanco. I'm surprised they were able to get that much considering there weren't many bidders besides Seattle. Great job getting Trader Jerry to bid against himself.

Market rate starting pitcher (and they obviously needed one)

Cheap, good reliever with 3 years of arbitration salaries (another obvious need)

Top 100 prospect outfielder (The Twins know how to scout outfielders)

Throw-in pitching prospect

$8M 

It's getting an extra $8M from a mid-market team that really puts this one over the top for me. It was fair before they added the cash.

Seattle PBO Jerry Dipoto was unlikely to be bidding against himself. A month ago MLB Trade Rumors listed nine potential destinations for Jorge Polanco:

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2023/12/looking-for-a-match-in-a-jorge-polanco-trade.html

5 minutes ago, harmony55 said:

Seattle PBO Jerry Dipoto was unlikely to be bidding against himself.

Ultimately I think he was bidding against Toronto which is why Justin Turner signed with the Jays right after the Polanco trade went through. The Cubs and Giants are both more interested in Chapman.

8 minutes ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

Many have already pointed this out, and we always forget, but you need to take those sugary commercial top-100 lists with a grain of salt. Jose Salas and Simeon Woods Richardson were on those lists. After sleeping on it, Gabriel Gonzalez — I’m sure he’s a great guy personally — feels a lot more like one of those guys to me, than a guy still on the rise. 

So you think the Twins don't know how to scout outfielders?

9 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Ultimately I think he was bidding against Toronto which is why Justin Turner signed with the Jays right after the Polanco trade went through. The Cubs and Giants are both more interested in Chapman.

And it takes only two bidders to drive up the price.

Here is the other problem with this deal. The Twins best trade chip to acquire a good controlled starter was Julien or Polanco and prospects. They have now spent that chip and not got what they really needed.  To acquire that starter now is going to really hurt the farm. 

1 hour ago, Linus said:

Here is the other problem with this deal. The Twins best trade chip to acquire a good controlled starter was Julien or Polanco and prospects. They have now spent that chip and not got what they really needed.  To acquire that starter now is going to really hurt the farm. 

The Twins likely set their sights high but settled for what the market would bear.

24 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

1. Where are the Twins going to be able to spend that money in June or July if (when) Desclafiani sucks?

2. The Twins didn't actually net an extra $8M. They got $8M to put towards Desclafani's $12M salary.

3. Both SF and Seattle were so happy to be rid of Desclafani this winter they were willing to pay part of his salary to NOT pitch for them. That should tell you what those two organizations think of him.

 

If he is DFA’d, he doesn’t walk away with $12M. He gets sent down the road and the twins use the $$$ on someone else.

so. The twins dont have to pay 10.5 for polo. 
they have the $8M in the bank now.

They aren’t going to lose in this situation. 

18 minutes ago, Linus said:

Here is the other problem with this deal. The Twins best trade chip to acquire a good controlled starter was Julien or Polanco and prospects. They have now spent that chip and not got what they really needed.  To acquire that starter now is going to really hurt the farm. 

Except the really valuable part of that trade would be the prospects, not Polanco, and now they have more prospects.

12 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

I appreciate your positive voice here. There are a few things to consider though. First the Twins lose a guy who bats either 2nd or 3rd in their lineup. Only good players hit in those spots. Right? Second, the pitcher is not as good as our current bottom of the rotation arm or even (according TheAthletic's Eno Sarris) Simeon Woods Richardson. So not someone to use as a starter really. Third, quality depth is always a good thing to have available. There is a DH to rotate players. 

Again, thanks for the positive addition but this trade looks to hurt the team for the coming season.

I agree the overall trade makes our team immediately worse, but I think that's a shortsighted view. For starters, the added prospect depth could potentially be used to make our team better this year. But more importantly, I think this is a good balance of combining what's best for this year with what's going to be best for the next few years with our new young core. 

To me Polanco is not a #2 or #3 hitter in this lineup. All signs are pointing to better health for Correa and (admittedly, much less reliably) Buxton this year. Those two playing closer to their full potential combined with Royce, Julien and a potentially still rejuvenated Max Kepler and I don't even see Polanco in the top half of the lineup. Also, as I stated before Polanco only played 80 games last year and 100 the year before. He hasn't been reliably on the field recently and with Julien and Lee waiting in the wings I don't think this is as big a loss as people are making it out to be. The reality is he's a veteran with a pricier contract and a recent injury history on crowded roster of young, upcoming players. And while depth is good, but we can only carry so many people on the roster. We got a top 100 prospect for him with some added bullpen and rotation depth. Again, though it's hard to say goodbye I think this was a reasonable move to make.

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

I didn't believe that in 2022 because the situations were different. I didn't think the team was that good so wouldn't have felt a need to "go for it." I know your stance on this. There's no reason for us to go through this song and dance again. You like future assets at all times, I don't. I believe there are times when you can sacrifice some (yes, some, not all) future assets for present ones. Especially when the present ones I'm suggesting they go after come with 5 years of control. So, yes, I disagree with the guys getting paid to make this decision if their goal with this trade was to gain future assets. But they themselves said that wasn't their goal so maybe you're the one who disagrees with them?

They give them whatever it takes philosophy in fanatical.  The proof is very clear if you would be willing to look at how TBR and the Guardians or As have outperformed bottom half revenue teams over the past 25 years.  This has become common practice for the best teams and FO people who want to keep their job manage assets based on total return as opposed to give whatever it takes to be better right now.  Anyone can push chips in to be better short term.  That requires very little management acumen.

39 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

1. Where are the Twins going to be able to spend that money in June or July if (when) Desclafiani sucks?

2. The Twins didn't actually net an extra $8M. They got $8M to put towards Desclafani's $12M salary.

3. Both SF and Seattle were so happy to be rid of Desclafani this winter they were willing to pay part of his salary to NOT pitch for them. That should tell you what those two organizations think of him.

 

1. The ability to take on salary in a midseason trade does matter sometimes. It's not useless

2. And as has been noted, they're not paying Polanco's $10.5M, so they're netting about $5M when you throw in Topa's salary.

3. This is the part that's the most scary about DeSclafani, and it's why the deal feels underwhelming to many, when the stated goal was to acquire starting pitching. If this guy is a replacement-level pitcher then we moved one of our best trade chips and didn't get the return we need.

Now, we didn't get nothing: DeSclafani might be a solid back of the rotation guy and though it seems insane at times...those guys get $8-10M on the open market easily. Topa does look like a good replacement for the innings that Pagan chewed up in the bullpen last season, which certainly has value to the team right now. And the prospects are good: Seattle's #3 prospect, which for them looks to rate somewhere in the 90-120 overall range, and an A-ball pitcher with upside. But we need to make another move to address the needs of today's team, which can contend. Maybe these prospects help get that done, or make it easier to move another guy in our system. Maybe the extra $5M lets us rebalance the roster (there's no question that we were long on infielders) and replace Polanco's production in a different spot. but we're not there yet.

i think it's fair to be skeptical of the deal and the moves (or lack of moves) so far this offseason, but we're also not in fireable offense territory with this deal.

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

I didn't believe that in 2022 because the situations were different. I didn't think the team was that good so wouldn't have felt a need to "go for it." I know your stance on this. There's no reason for us to go through this song and dance again. You like future assets at all times, I don't. I believe there are times when you can sacrifice some (yes, some, not all) future assets for present ones. Especially when the present ones I'm suggesting they go after come with 5 years of control. So, yes, I disagree with the guys getting paid to make this decision if their goal with this trade was to gain future assets. But they themselves said that wasn't their goal so maybe you're the one who disagrees with them?

They did as they said they would in trading need for need. They need a starter and a reliever, they got them. Along the way they picked up prospects because they picked up a back of the rotation starter for a good position player. Both sides are correct . Should have they picked up a better starter? They either have confidence in Ober, Ryan and Paddack it doesn’t matter, or they have so little confidence it does not matter. A rated low minor prospect has a better chance for success than an equally rated high minor prospect . Neither player may end up a star, but the likelihood of them being of value is good. 

32 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

MLR, we've been through this. I'm not going to do it with you again. We disagree on this trade. It's ok. You're not going to convince me with your wash and repeat "but Cleveland, Tampa, and Oakland do it" speech. I know where you stand and you know where I stand. I don't care if you feel I'm being fanatical or not.

So, in other words, let's ignore the facts of how teams have been successful because it does not fit your opinion of how to be successful.  What you are telling me is that you are not interested in the hard evidence for what has worked for every 90 win team in the bottom half of revenue in the last 25 years.  After listening to people repeatedly take your position.  I wanted to know if this position held by so many would align with history / actual results.  So, I took the time to gather the data to determine how successful teams in the bottom half of revenue acquired the best players on their rosters over the past 20 years.  I have posted that factual information more than once but as you said here is no convincing you or anyone else with the facts when you are unwilling to accept hard evidence.  I don't know if that should be labeled fanatical but it's certainly not an informed position.

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

Except the really valuable part of that trade would be the prospects, not Polanco, and now they have more prospects.

But they have to use more of them. Polo plus prospects gave us the biggest bang for the buck.