Why You Shouldn't Lump Anthony DeSclafani In With Other Injured Twins Pitching Acquisitions

2 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

I am having a hard time caring about the motivation for the deal here and the back and forth.

Did anyone believe then that this 2024 team was better as a result of the trade? I didn’t and it was my comment on the trade. Isn’t that what matters?

I hope my beliefs are proven wrong by Topa pitching all star worthy relief.

It may be all that matters to a fan, but sometimes management has other goals imposed on them. Just because you want to avoid the issue doesn't mean Falvey had that option. A deal had to be made to reduce the resources invested in the team. so it was going to be nearly impossible to improve the team this winter. There's a good chance that in this trade they might have improved the organization in the long run even if the 2024 team didn't get better. But one real goal met here was cutting payroll, and that had to happen. 

1 hour ago, Cris E said:

It may be all that matters to a fan, but sometimes management has other goals imposed on them. Just because you want to avoid the issue doesn't mean Falvey had that option. A deal had to be made to reduce the resources invested in the team. so it was going to be nearly impossible to improve the team this winter. There's a good chance that in this trade they might have improved the organization in the long run even if the 2024 team didn't get better. But one real goal met here was cutting payroll, and that had to happen. 

What issue have I avoided? Payroll? I accept the drop in payroll. I don’t agree with the allocation of those dollars.

Is it fair to say they could have kept Polanco and traded (or non tendered) Farmer and had the same payroll? Farmer plus DeSclafani is virtually the same as Polanco. Is the 2024 team better in that case?  I thought so then. I think so now. 

5 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Don't claim everyone else ignores that question. That question has been answered many times, you just don't like the answer. Jorge Polanco wouldn't be the fulltime DH. He'd cycle through the DH spot with Julien, Lewis, Kirilloff, and every other player on the roster. You know, like they already do. But if you want a concrete answer, again, on who Polanco would start over the answer is still Carlos Santana. Stop claiming people haven't answered your question and just admit that you don't like the answer. When Carlos Santana is starting everyday against righties (which he is) you have a very clear and obvious answer to the question. Jorge Polanco would start over Carlos Santana. Whether it be at 1B or DH with Kirilloff at 1B or at 2B with Julien at 1B and Kirilloff at DH or at 2B with Julien at DH and Kirilloff at 1B. Look, I just provided you 3 solutions. Jorge Polanco would not be a bench player by any definition and would start everyday for this team.

This is your opinion of who he starts over.   If the twins agreed with you, Polanco would still be here.  They don't want a full-time DH and neither do most teams.  And, if they wanted a full-time DH, Martinez would have made much more sense.  They would have a better hitter, a good RP, and two good prospects.

In addition, he is an inferior choice over Kirilloff against RHP and Inferior to Santana against LHP.  The only time he would not be an inferior choice is at DH.

13 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Which is it? Did the Twins trade Polanco to get prospects because that's what smart teams in the bottom half of revenue do with veterans or did they trade him because they didn't think he was better than 38 year old Carlos Santana? I say they did it because they thought DeSclafani was going to go into their rotation with Topa in the pen and that they believed that combined with Santana was a better option than finding other pitchers, but I'm told the Twins didn't even want DeSclafani so what do I know?

You asked for an answer and I provided a more than reasonable one. Nobody on here has claimed he would be an everyday DH so I have no idea why you keep saying that. I gave you multiple iterations of how they could use him in a rotation at DH. Your refusal to accept that they could, and would, use him in a DH rotation like they use everybody is going against the very clear evidence that that'd be the case. Last year he played 2B, 3B, and DH, but now you want to argue that'd he'd somehow be just a DH? Come on.

Write out your brilliant lineups to show us how Jorge Polanco wouldn't play here. Who would be the 9 better hitters against righties and who'd be the 9 better hitters against lefties? Once you accept that there aren't 9 better hitters for either of those lineups think about whether or not the Twins rotate guys through the DH spot and if they could do that with Polanco in those 2 lineups. I gave you a head start by listing off 3 iterations of the 2B/1B/DH spots against righties already, but I'm sure you can come up with a few others against both righties and lefties if you really try hard.

We can argue this until the cows come home.  You think Polanco is critical.  Not one single reporter who covered this agrees.  Obviously, the twins also don't agree.  You keep harping on you want to build a 100 win / dominant team but have you ever examined how those teams are constructed?  You are assuming facts but you have not offered any evidence supporting the strategies you insist are key.  By this I mean examples of successful teams.  Let's start with the fact that 100 wins is very rare in any team in the lower half of revenue.  The 2nd chart below shows the number of 97 win seasons for all teams since the turn of the century.  Nine teams have zero 97 win seasons.  16 teams have one or less.  You are asking the team to disregard sustaining a good product in order to chase a pipedream.  

Have you ever looked at how teams in the lower half of revenue built those rosters?  The only two teams in the bottom half of revenue with more than one 97 win season since 2000 are the Rays and As.  They achieved this by doing exactly the opposite of what you insist is the best strategy.   Listed below is the percentage of WAR produced by players acquired as prospects and free agents by the As and Rays and I though in the 102 win 2017 Guardians.  In other words, they traded away someone like Polanco for an unestablished player defined as a player that have never produced 1.5 WAR in a season.

With the exception of the 2008 Rays, the biggest contributors to these teams by a wide margin were players acquired as Prospects.   The 2008 Rays were a bit different.  They got 45% of their WAR from drafted players.  They had Longoria, Uptown, and Shields.  They also got productivity from 3 free inexpensive free agents which totaled $9.6M.

History would suggest you are advocating for strategies far less likely to produce a 97+ win team.  You are advocating they appease fans that want to pursue tactics that are the exact opposite of what has been successful in the past.  Should we ignore the facts as it pertains to literally every team in the bottom half of revenue for every season since the turn of the century because you say there is a better way?   The 2024 Minnesota twins are not going from a projected 85 to 97 or 100 wins because they keep Polanco or spend another $25M in free agency.  However, they can give themselves a better shot at gaining that level of success by trading players like Polanco.  

16 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

We can argue this until the cows come home.  You think Polanco is critical.  Not one single reporter who covered this agrees.  Obviously, the twins also don't agree.  You keep harping on you want to build a 100 win / dominant team but have you ever examined how those teams are constructed?  

Mostly by spending money!  One team in the bottom third of payroll has won the Series since 91.  So if you think the Twins strategy of cutting payroll, dumping salary, and exchanging proven major league talent for fliers, is a good way to build a "sustainable" good product, then we (and history) disagree.

Do you have those lineups showing 9 better Twins hitters than Polanco yet?  We're all waiting...

43 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Change the goalpost much? You asked who Polanco would start over. I provided an answer. You changed it to the Twins not wanting a fulltime DH and I pointed out that that isn't what anyone was claiming it would be and provided you examples for how it wouldn't work that way. Now you've just completely moved off that to impress us all with your vast research that has nothing to do with what the discussion was because you don't have an actual response to the very clear and obvious answer to your question. It's ok to just say "dang, you're right, Jorge Polanco would play everyday in this lineup and wouldn't just be the DH because they can move guys around."

Your question: Who would Polanco start instead of if he were still here that would stop him from being a bench player? (with added claims that nobody is ever willing to answer your question)

The answer (provided multiple times in multiple threads): Carlos Santana who wouldn't even be on the roster if Polanco hadn't been traded, but the more in-depth answer is he'd be the primary DH while rotating around multiple positions with other guys just like the Twins are doing now with worse hitters.

Either accept that or don't, but quit moving the goalpost every post because you don't like that a legitimate answer to your question has been provided.

Avoid the facts much?  I just got tired of you insisting he starts over players he would not.  More importantly this particular question is insignificant in the larger picture and they entire basis for this conversation.  You said yourself a couple times in the last week that this is about building a dominant team.  Keeping Polanco does not even come close to moving that bar.  You are constantly harping constantly about the foolishness of the organization when you simply don't understand how your own goals have been accomplished in the past.   These facts are very clear and instead of acknowledging those facts you complain that I want to talk about the how to achieve the ultimate goal instead of focusing on this one tangent.  What do you have to say about the fact that every team but one that has achieved your stated goal got there primarily on the basis of making this type of trade for prospects?  Big Picture!  Do you want to know how this has been achieved or just ignore hard facts that clearly contradict what you believe to be key?

I was not changing the goal posts.  I just got tired of arguing that Polanco is a starter in a non-DH role.  Every single reporter said as much but apparently you know better than all of them.  The FO did not think so but you know better than them.  He does not replace Julien against RHP and Farmer is a better option against LHP.  He certainly does not replace a healthy Lewis and he is not a `1B.  Kirilloff is at least as good an option against RHP and Santana is the better option against LHP.  Go ahead and disagree must the stats don't agree.  Santana's defensive superiority also makes up for all or at least most of Polanco's increased offense.  You don't pass on a good RP and a good prospect for this miniscule potential improvement.

BTW ... Polanco is hitting .154 with a wRC+ of 15 at this moment.  No doubt that will come up but he is not a sure thing.   

17 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

What issue have I avoided? Payroll? I accept the drop in payroll. I don’t agree with the allocation of those dollars.

Is it fair to say they could have kept Polanco and traded (or non tendered) Farmer and had the same payroll? Farmer plus DeSclafani is virtually the same as Polanco. Is the 2024 team better in that case?  I thought so then. I think so now. 

But Descalfani is here to offset the Polanco salary in that deal. SEA needed a payroll dump to even things up or we don't make the deal at all. He can't be separated from that deal. I guess the choices were to send money to SEA to take Polanco or take back an oft-injured pitcher who might contribute at some point, so they took the player.

Farmer is here as the backup middle infielder behind Correa, a man whose health is so fragile that it cost him $100m in discounts the last time he went out for a contract. We don't have a proven MLB SS in the org that can fill in for Correa long-term, and it's certainly a role that Polanco cannot fill. (Castro can play a few games there but he's not a real SS. Lee is both hurt and unproven.) 

19 hours ago, Cris E said:

  21 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

I am having a hard time caring about the motivation for the deal here and the back and forth.

Did anyone believe then that this 2024 team was better as a result of the trade? I didn’t and it was my comment on the trade. Isn’t that what matters?

I hope my beliefs are proven wrong by Topa pitching all star worthy relief.

You say you don't care why, but the money was really what mattered. The measure was not how it improved the 2024 team, the measure was lowering the 2024 payroll.  Your premise was wrong so your judgement was wrong.

They felt they had to trade one of the large contracts, which meant Polanco, Kepler or Vasquez. No one wanted Vasquez, so the choice was either the healthy OF (where we didn't have any depth: Buxton without a CF backup, young Wallner, young ineffective Larnach) or the frequently injured 2B where we have a traffic problem (Julien, Farmer, Lee) so they went with moving Polanco.  They probably started out wanting what you wanted, but they had to dump salary more than they had to have another starter and few teams wanted Polanco at all.

29 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Jorge Polanco would be the PRIMARY DH, yes. Then he'd give Julien a "half day off" by playing 2B while Julien DH's. Then he'd give Kirilloff one by playing the field while Kirilloff DHs. Then he'd give Lewis one while Lewis DHs. Then he'd give Wallner one while he plays the field and Kirilloff moves to LF and Wallner DHs. Holy cow. This isn't that complicated. It's literally what the Twins have been doing for years yet now you want to argue they'd change that this year despite them literally doing it with Jorge Polanco last year? What a ridiculous argument.

Hey, every single reporter said the Twins cutting payroll was a short-sighted, bad decision, but apparently you know better than all of them. I can play this game, too. The "well the team disagreed so you're obviously wrong" argument is not impressive. Until you agree with 100% of the things the team does it's not an argument that carries any weight. And, news flash, not every member of the Twins organization agrees with every decision they make. Crazy, huh?

You asked a question. I answered the question. You went zig-zagging all over the map trying to avoid the fact that all I'm advocating for is that they'd use Polanco the exact same way they used him last year with the exact same team make-up (other than Margot instead of MAT) and you just don't want to admit that's true. 

My stated goal is winning championships. None of the teams you're advocating the Twins emulate have won championships anytime recently. As another poster pointed out this is you "kidnapping" others to force them into your room to make the arguments you want to make for the goals you want to reach. And to do that you've derailed the other conversation to find another opportunity to brag about your research. That's the end of it. We've all seen it. We all understand it. This thread is about the DeSclafani trade which included Polanco so that's what we were discussing. You asked a question and it was answered. If you're uninterested in, or unable to, refuting the answer with legitimate points don't derail things onto your pet ideas. Just stop responding.

BTW...his replacement Julien is hitting .133 with a 52 wRC+ at this moment. What a completely useless argument, but thanks for pointing it out. 

If going through the trouble to determine if history actually supports a theory instead of just assuming my position is correct constitutes bragging, perhaps you should do some research of your own.  I simply present hard fact.  I am sorry the facts strongly suggest the problem is that you don't understand how winning teams are built.  I based this data on your criteria of building a 100 win team and rolled in back to 97 wins given 100 wins has only been achieved 4 times since the turn of the century by teams in the bottom half of revenue.  

To be fair, you have stated it's about winning championships.  The only team that has one a championship in the past 15 years in Kansas City.  The have never had even a 97 win season and have the worst record in all of MLB over the past couple of decades.  Is that who you want to emulate.  You have to go back more than 20 years to find another WS winner.  That would include the Marlins, and Dbacks.  Do you want to emulate them?  

Finally, am I supposed to think it's critical we use Polanco as we did last year when he produced 1.4 WAR.  Does that really move the bar.  Could Topa's production be equal or close.   Should we give up a top 100 prospect to pick-up 1 WAR.  Should I just ignore the fact that Lee is very close to ready further negating the need for Polanco?  

1 minute ago, USAFChief said:

1. Desclafani was the target of the Polanco trade. 

2. The Twins didn't actually save money trading Polanco. Between Desclafani,  Topa, and the two players they signed with the "savings" they ended up with a higher payroll. 

1. I could not agree less. Moving Polanco for the best package they could get was the goal. Descalfani was a throw in. Most folks who are not disappointed fans agree on this.

2. Well that's nonsensical, you can't just ignore the fruits of the trade.  They had a choice of Polanco or Topa, two prospects, and Descalfani plus money to sign two other players. Five guys vs one for a small increase in payroll.

5 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Mostly by spending money!  One team in the bottom third of payroll has won the Series since 91.  So if you think the Twins strategy of cutting payroll, dumping salary, and exchanging proven major league talent for fliers, is a good way to build a "sustainable" good product, then we (and history) disagree.

Do you have those lineups showing 9 better Twins hitters than Polanco yet?  We're all waiting...

Show me where I said there were 9 better hitters.  I said he would not start at any position other than DH which he is not.  The problem you think that's it's that simple.  Match-ups matter.  Defensive flexibility matters.  Who replaces Polanco's ABs matters.  The fact that Lee is waiting in the wings matters.  The fact that they got a good RP matters. 

The real interesting thing here is that I have posted the facts.  In other words, I have posted the percentage of WAR produced by platers acquired as prospects vs players acquired after producing a year with 1.5 WAR.  The results are staggering.  yet, you want to tell me history disagrees.  It's one thing to not be informed.  It's quite another to ignore the facts and insist the facts are something entirely different.   

Instead of making unsupported insulting comments.  Show me any team in the bottom half of revenue that produced more WAR from trading for proven players than trading for prospects.  I don't think you can find one that produced 1/2 as much WAR by trading for proven players.  Three out of every four examples of 90 win teams produced the most war from players that were acquired as prospects or waiver claims.  In other words, you are dead wrong!  I will say it again.  Show proof instead of talking big.

4 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

My stated goal is winning championships. None of the teams you're advocating the Twins emulate have won championships anytime recently. As another poster pointed out this is you "kidnapping" others to force them into your room to make the arguments you want to make for the goals you want to reach. And to do that you've derailed the other conversation to find another opportunity to brag about your research. That's the end of it. We've all seen it. We all understand it. This thread is about the DeSclafani trade which included Polanco so that's what we were discussing. You asked a question and it was answered. If you're uninterested in, or unable to, refuting the answer with legitimate points don't derail things onto your pet ideas. Just stop responding.

BTW...his replacement Julien is hitting .133 with a 52 wRC+ at this moment. What a completely useless argument, but thanks for pointing it out. 

You also said that you wanted to build a 100 win type team instead of relying on a lesser team to win in the playoffs because the 100 win type of team has a much better chance in the playoffs.  So, I listed all of the teams in the bottom half of revenue to achieve 97 wins because so few ever reach 100 wins.  Then, you tell me it does not count because they didn't win a championship.   This is not reasonable and without a doubt you know those teams do have a better chance of winning but winning it all also takes some luck.  When you found out they built those teams by trading players like Polanco for prospects, you just could not acknowledge that these facts make your position exceptionally suspect.

So, let's talk about how the one team in the bottom half of revenue that has won a WS.  The 2015 Royals produced 32% of their WAR from players acquired as prospects.  38% was from drafted players which was a product of absolutely sucking for a very long time.  9% came from the Intl draft.  12% from acquiring proven players and 9% from Edison Volquez who is the exact opposite type of FA that you endorse.

So, the one team that has won the WS does not support your contention either.  The hard facts are that the practices you insist upon are the opposite of what has produced the best teams over the past couple decades.  If you disagree, show an example from the last 15 years as I have.

4 hours ago, Cris E said:

But Descalfani is here to offset the Polanco salary in that deal. SEA needed a payroll dump to even things up or we don't make the deal at all. He can't be separated from that deal. I guess the choices were to send money to SEA to take Polanco or take back an oft-injured pitcher who might contribute at some point, so they took the player.

Farmer is here as the backup middle infielder behind Correa, a man whose health is so fragile that it cost him $100m in discounts the last time he went out for a contract. We don't have a proven MLB SS in the org that can fill in for Correa long-term, and it's certainly a role that Polanco cannot fill. (Castro can play a few games there but he's not a real SS. Lee is both hurt and unproven.) 

You say you don't care why, but the money was really what mattered. The measure was not how it improved the 2024 team, the measure was lowering the 2024 payroll.  Your premise was wrong so your judgement was wrong.

They felt they had to trade one of the large contracts, which meant Polanco, Kepler or Vasquez. No one wanted Vasquez, so the choice was either the healthy OF (where we didn't have any depth: Buxton without a CF backup, young Wallner, young ineffective Larnach) or the frequently injured 2B where we have a traffic problem (Julien, Farmer, Lee) so they went with moving Polanco.  They probably started out wanting what you wanted, but they had to dump salary more than they had to have another starter and few teams wanted Polanco at all.

 

 

Is my opinion that the money should have been spent differently valid it all? It wouldn’t seem so with your comments. I think they could have spent the same money differently and built a team that is better for 2024. One way was to keep Polanco and non tender Farmer. The money would be the same. I think that makes this team better in 2024. That is all I have ever said.

On 4/4/2024 at 12:07 PM, Jocko87 said:

Careful with your fancy psychology terms, if a moderator bothers to look them up up you'll be suspended until the All-Star break.  That blows through the terms of service with the tailpipe on fire.  If you truly knew anything about such terms you would know the folly, or malpractice, of using them in internet conversations.  It's called the Goldwater rule, and you should know it if you know these other terms.

When the whole internet has decided what happened in a highly published court case, and the verdict stuns everyone, which side do you find yourself on?  I've got good idea but I dare not assume.  The reason for that is that words matter.  They have specific definitions, regardless of what the internets say.  It a different context or setting, what @chpettit19 said would be libelous.  This being a message board, I gave him a gentle pushback with hopes he would see the error of his certainty but here we are.  Again.

Based on your stated interpretation of my take, which you would have to manufacture from thin air, I'm running up a hill here.  My working assumption, for which there is no way to prove, is that Falvey is actively pursuing a starting pitcher every single day of the week.  I would bet significant amounts that the very day he made that quote he also made calls on starting pitching.  I would bet that he made a call or had an internal meeting about acquiring starting pitching today and will think about it again tomorrow.  Not one word of that quote says that he is not still looking for starters.

That's the Occam's razor explanation.  To think Falvey would ever say something like was claimed, considering all we know about him, might be a complexity or confirmation bias.

Thank you professor. I feel enlightened. Or is it entitled? Gotta grab my dictionary.

5 hours ago, Cris E said:

1. I could not agree less. Moving Polanco for the best package they could get was the goal. Descalfani was a throw in. Most folks who are not disappointed fans agree on this.

2. Well that's nonsensical, you can't just ignore the fruits of the trade.  They had a choice of Polanco or Topa, two prospects, and Descalfani plus money to sign two other players. Five guys vs one for a small increase in payroll.

This is just a hypothetical question. If the Twins knew now that DeSclafani would probably never throw a pitch for the Twins, do they still make this trade? And remember that one of Falveys statements was that the Twins weren't trading for prospects. They were trading for the here and now. It might be that these 2 prospects that they got will pay dividends. But that was not what the FO was aiming for. At least that's what they said to the media and fan base. All this other arguing is just a my dad's tougher than yours. And everyone knows. My dad's the toughest.

44 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Ignoring the other obvious issues with your post, neither of these "facts" are actually facts.

If you're going to lecture others on "evidence" and "facts" at least use some yourself. 

I am pretty sure getting a RP matters so are you saying Lee is not waiting in the wings?  I realize this is a relative statement as to just how ready he is but the consensus here and from Falvey's lips are that he is very near ready.  Perhaps a better phrasing would have been Lee is expected to be ready relatively early in the season but now we are nitpicking.

I noticed you ignored the far more important part of the post which addressed these previous posters claim that prospects don't matter while the facts show trading for prospects has been the most impactful tactic in building 90 win teams for those teams with below average revenue.  In other words, you ignored the core of the message in order to find a piece you could argue.  Someone actually went through the trouble of gathering a great deal of information that happens to show that all of you that are on the prospects are just prospects train don't understand how teams in the bottom half of revenue have been successful and you don't like these facts being pointed out because it demonstrates the futility of your position.

I would be happy to argue the facts if you actually want to present some that show directly how winning rosters have been built.

4 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Section 1 Lee is unproven so couldn't be a reasonable backup plan for Correa so they had to pay Kyle Farmer over 6 million to be his backup and a short-side of a platoon bat. Oh, and I will point out that Kyle Farmer has played 0 innings at SS this season while Willi Castro has played 4. So when the Twins needed a SS in 2024 they didn't use Farmer, they used Castro.

Section 2 Lee is a "traffic problem" capable of replacing Jorge Polanco who is a better baseball player than Kyle Farmer.

Which is it? Is Lee unproven and a reason you need to keep a significantly overpriced Kyle Farmer, or is Lee a "traffic problem" that gives you a reason to trade the underpaid, but still more expensive, Polanco? Not sure how he can't be worthy of replacing the lesser player but can be worthy of replacing the better player.

Way to skip Jullien and farmer, but OK, let's talk about Lee.

Lee has hit .237 in 38 games above AA, and beyond that he's got platoon splits to work on. (If you prefer more sophisticated stats go look at the full spread, but he's not ready by any measure.) If Correa goes down for a few months is Lee ready to be the SS into the playoffs? Of course not, he's not ready now so we have to wait.

OK, now we dump Farmer to save money so your single reliable middle infielder behind both Correa and Jullien is Castro. And then you want to reduce the playing time of three or four better hitters (Correa, Lewis and Jullien for openers) to wedge Polanco in?  Polanco has had what, 2-3 healthy seasons in his career, none since 2021, and yet somehow he's ready to step up and play in LF (for the first time in his life) then 1B (for the first time in his life) then shift back to 3b (where he is not good) for a game a week and then if he's still standing maybe be the platoon partner for Jullien?    And the only cost to achieving this state is not adding a bullpen arm plus a lotto ticket stating pitcher plus not freeing any money to get a CF backup or backup 1B. You prefer Polanco to the five guys we could afford after this trade?

To all those that like the trade. Good for you and stick to your guns. Don't come back in 3 year crying "we got fleeced" for getting broken pitchers or unproven prospects. I also realize that this statement works both ways. I like crow.  I've been eating it for years. It's a dish best served cold, or not.