Riverbrian

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.

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.

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.

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.

Here's what I'd like to know. Why did Falvey and Lavine think that money wouldn't be a concern? They made a lot of roster decisions that suggest they thought money wouldn't be a concern. There is absolutely nothing in the history of Minnesota Twins budgets that would lead a new front office... just coming into a job... to believe that money wouldn't be a concern in Minnesota. They staffed the roster like they could go to 160 million, 170... 180? Just keep increasing as needed. They are not idiots... Why did they have that impression? I understand course correction. What I don't understand is the impression in the first place. Minnesota has never been a "mid-market" team. We all know this. They had to know this. What made them think they could free agent sign their way to glory?

I'll be surprised if he remains on the 40 man. However,.. he plays SS and CF and our SS depth chart is pretty scary. It's kind of like grabbing a plastic bottle of motor oil to protect yourself against an intruder in your garage... because you haven't got anything better to protect yourself with and you hope you don't have to use it.

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.

Exactly. In the end. My 4 requests are just slight variations on the same core. Just building blocks in the shifting sand of baseball nuance. All things being equal... I want the front office and manager to commit to youth over committing to an expiring contract. The problem is... Things are rarely equal but I believe that if the manager allows for honest to god competition. The Wins today will take care of themselves while at the same time building a strong future.

You keep him. You give him the playing time he earns. Most importantly... You have someone or someones competing with him for that playing time. But you keep him... Because if you get him to turn it around. He could be special. I agree with other posters though. I have no idea what is going on with his feet.

I will not endorse any candidate for Manager unless I get a chance to interview them. 😉 I'm pretty sure that whoever gets the job... I will end up being equal parts supportive and critical because the odds of any manager doing exactly what I want them to do is pretty close to nil. Therefore I will wait for the people in charge of making this decision to make a decision and I'll start with support until I feel the need to criticize constructively with continued support. I'll just start with these requests... find a manager that: 1. Is Pro Development to his core... Someone that understands that growth and discovery are more important than predetermination. Someone who understands that limiting tomorrows development by strip mining of parts off of young players will come with a large bill that will come due in the future. A bill that will probably include someone else managing the team as part of the payment due. 2. Allows for competition amongst all roster spots. Reward good play from whoever is providing it over predetermination. Utilize all roster spots in search of good play because 26 players compared to 17 chosen ones increases your odds of finding 17 players. 3. Understands that Predetermination is frequently wrong and actively avoids driving predetermination off the cliff waiting for performance to match predetermined expectation. 4. Let's the players make the manager utilization decisions through performance instead of the manager making decisions and hoping for performance.

It's exactly what I hope for. Just roster your best players and give more work to the best of your best. Anything that stops you from doing that is a self imposed handicap. Defined roles with self imposed limitations are handicaps that can stop you from rostering your best players. It's a mistake to just shop the reliever aisle because you are looking for specific roles. It's a mistake to just shop the starter aisle when looking for a rotation specific role. You just look for the best arms period. It's a mistake to look for a crappy 1B to play a specific role. Roster your best players please. Looking for specific roles is how you choose Celestino over what had to be better players at the time. There had to be better players but Celestino could fill that one role and he ends up playing more than he should when you consider his overall talent and performance. It's how you choose Margot looking for that right handed OF role. The Twins need to stop trying to piece this thing together and make a full on blitz to find and develop TALENT period. To your point... The bullpen can be a great way to manage innings on young arms if necessary. You've done a great job of listing players who have transitioned... there are more. Can you hang a zero and how many can you hang. The next step is for others to stop thinking that the players you list are oddities or special. They are not.

MLR makes great points about Milwaukee, Cleveland, Tampa and how they handle service time to restock their farm systems before they lose players for nothing. I strongly believe Minnesota needs that sort of thing in their repertoire. Trading Polanco for a future GG can be viewed as similar. Those 3 teams do a great job at that and I think it's an important to pay attention to what they are doing. However... those three teams will also buy when the opportunity is right. Cleveland has acquired some great prospects and they have also traded great prospects. I think they would love to have kept Yandy and Yanier Diaz. It's hard to say what they were thinking when they traded Junior Caminero for Tobias Myers. The Brewers went and got Yelich because they felt the timing was right. The Twins timing at the time of the Polanco deal? That is worthy of debate. I think it was time to strike and they didn't.

Just an add on. To hopefully show that I'm not a hypocrite. It's important to note. Whatever way I felt at the time of the trade. If Polanco would have performed in Minnesota in 2024 like he did in Seattle 2024. I'm pretty sure that I would have been complaining about his performance and his expiring contract around June and would have been asking for anyone else to compete with him for playing time. Regardless... On October 14th, 2025. With the 2024 and 2025 seasons in the rear view mirror. I stand here believing that the Twins shouldn't have made the deal based on a reasonable expectation of what Polanco should have produced in 2024 (but did not) for a team coming off a playoff series win. I believe that the loss of Polonco was a payroll pivot point but yet a smaller issue compared to a larger issue of the reallocation of his money which was spread amongst Desclafini, Margot and Santana. 3 players who like Polanco most likely wouldn't have been back the following year and only 1 of those players had a decent year. So... I'm still back to the original question at the time of the trade. Is it better to have one good player or divide that player into multiple lesser players at the same price. I'll take the one good player with pre-arb players filling the roster space instead. And I'll repeat. If GG becomes a good major league player. We will win this trade.

If the Twins can develop GG into a major league ball player. The Twins will win the trade. Until GG is a major league ball player or if they fail to develop him. The trade will just go into history as an organizational pivot point. At the time of the trade... I was asking the question. Is it better to have one real good player or 3 lesser players? At the time of the trade... I didn't know the answer to that question that I was asking... I was just wondering out loud. I'm not wondering anymore. I stopped pondering that question even after a rather horrific 2024 season in Seattle for Polanco. There is no doubt in my mind... One real good player shouldn't be broken up to fill multiple holes with multiple lesser pieces. I don't care what Polanco hit in 2024. There was no question he was a hitter at the time of the trade and the best player involved in that deal. Lesson for the upcoming offseason? Here's the big lesson. Players Ping Pong from year to year. You think a player is dead in 2024. It means nothing in regards to 2025. Jorge Polanco didn't lose opportunity despite the down year. As we declare who is dead based on 2025... we prepare for 2026 and who gets opportunity.

In fairness... it was supposed to be Kirilloff. But, they strip mined him for parts requiring Solano and Alex couldn't stay healthy in 2023. Santana moved him off of first in 2024. This put him in the OF and DH primarily and he couldn't stay healthy in 2024 either.

2023 - Solano 2024 - Santana 2025 - France No more one year deals. Stop this train. The kind of creativity that I'm looking for is the type of creativity that avoids this yearly search for a cheap one year deal.

Falvey doesn't either. 😉

It's impossible for me to know what any front office would be willing to trade. I saw the proposal made. It's certainly brings back talented players but... in my subjective opinion. I'd rather get Mayer and Casas if possible. If I'm allowed to just pick players like I'm picking up soup off the shelf in a soupermarket. 😄 I just don't know if it's possible. Trades always take two to tango... And you probably want to give the other 29 teams a call and talk soup.

Personally, I don't believe payroll should be the determining factor on either Ryan or Lopez. Payroll has already been reduced significantly that the Twins have enough money to retain both of them. But... I'm also not looking at the books. Money will be the factor for the other 29 clubs you are trading with and the return you get back. Lopez is under control for 2 more years at around 43 million dollars. Ryan is under control for 2 more years at... that depends on the Arb 2 and Arb 3 number. If he has another great 2026... what 24 million? But teams are only on the hook for 8 million or whatever his arb number is this off season if his arm falls off in 2026. That 19 million or 33 million matters to the other 29 clubs you are trading with. Ryan brings back more because teams are only on the hook for 8 million or whatever the arb number is next season. Weather we get fair value in these trades? There are no guarantees in this world but I'll say this: If the Twins want fair value in these trades or excess value in these trades. They are going to have to not only identify the right player or players to trade for but they will have to develop that player or players to get fair value. Fair Value is up to the Twins front office. If they fail at this... we will have a new front office shortly afterwards. The Twins front office has to be in a position where they need things to go right for awhile.

Very sensible article. The big question of this off-season is do you trade Ryan or keep him? I can see arguments for both approaches and I'd imagine the return will determine the direction. Ryan is probably at peak value right now. He brings back the most in a trade and he probably brings back less next year so I think a Ryan trade makes sense this off-season. You also have to factor in that he is healthy right now but pitchers become unhealthy fast so the timing may actually be perfect for a Ryan trade. I don't want to trade Ryan but after a lot of thought... I think I'm leaning toward trading Joe Ryan. I'd prefer a young talented 1B in return and would love a young SS as well. Starting pitching is the team strength... perhaps the only department that is above major league average and the depth of major league arm options is also a major part of that strength to go along with Ryan and Lopez at the top of the rotation. If you trade Ryan and Lopez? Lopez becomes a true pivot point because you will have not only removed your top two arms but you have also significantly shallowed the depth on the mound. Once you trade Ryan and Lopez and shallowed the depth. The starting pitching will no longer be above average and that means that every single department will be below average since you took away the one thing that was not.

I agree on McCusker and Keirsay. The primary reason I agree on those two is "Faith Placed in them" and therefore waste of 40 man or 26 man space. A new manager could change that assessment. Age is not a consideration for me. Nathan Lukes is one reason why. There are others. Getting 6 years out of a player is wonderful but you don't have to get 6 years out of player to be worth a roster spot in any given year. The Blue Jays will worry about Nathan Lukes at age 33 when Nathan Lukes is 33. Outman... It doesn't matter what I think about him personally. I don't care what trade value Brock had. Trading Brock Stewart for a two month rental in a lost season would be a horrible trade. I understand Brock's injury history but at the very least... Brock could still be a Twin and the Twins could be one less bullpen arm that they have to find for 2026. At least until Brock gets hurt again. Brock didn't have to be traded. I can't see Outman not being a part of 2026. And if he is part of it... Age is not a consideration for me. Can he return to his rookie season is the consideration? Much like can Royce Lewis return to his rookie season? I'll worry about Outman at age 33 when he becomes 33. If Outman can't get it going, he's going to be run over by multiple options. If he continues to struggle and is not run over by multiple options coming from the minor leagues... we are in trouble. I'm not defending Outman specifically. But there is no way I will support trading Brock Stewart for a two month rental in a lost season. If you believe in the guy enough to justify that trade. Then believe in the guy.

For anyone who states that anything less then a World Series title is a failure. The Yankees and Twins and Phillies had the same result this year.

They don't think that already? You don't think the players hear footsteps. If it's a bad idea. Entitlement may have just become one of the biggest problems in baseball. I'm literally asking that opportunity be provided to all and that playing time is earned. That's a bad idea?

I'm switching between the Dodgers/Phillies and the Wild. I'm trying to watch the Wild but this Dodgers game won't end. I'll add this... LaPlanta is an excellent Hockey PBP talent.

Varland's bad inning wasn't helped by Aaron Judge who SOMEHOW got around on what was an excellent inside pitch from Varland against a guy with 2 mile long arms... Who SOMEHOW got around on it and KEPT IT FAIR and of course off the fair pole for another Home Run for a guy who hits a lot of them. It was one of the most impressive things I've seen. That Judge is special.