Why do you feel his option years were wasted? IMO, when you sign a young guy - Polanco was 16 in his first GCL experience - you in effect commit to adding him (assuming he's developing satisfactorily) to your 40-man before he's finished developing, or else risk losing him via the rule-5 draft, and then you use his option years to let him continue developing in the minors. That's what they did with Polanco. They did bring him up a couple of times in 2014/2015, precisely because he was now on the 40-man and thus an expedient choice to fill out the active roster for a few days or weeks. During his final option year, 2016, he was deemed ready, and was brought up at mid-season to stay. There's a possible misperception that bringing a young guy up to the majors is what burns an option. It's the other way around - once the player has been added to the 40-man roster, he must be on the active (25-man) roster unless he has options remaining. I guess the argument could be made that the Twins should have gambled by leaving him exposed to the rule-5 draft after he hit .300 with some pop at single-A as a 19-year-old. That would have preserved his 3 options by not starting the clock for another year. Would a bottom-feeder team have been able to make room for him for an entire season, and would there have been no better targets in that draft? I believe no middle infielders were chosen in the December 2013 draft, so maybe that means he would have sneaked through, in hindsight - or maybe it means he would have stood out as the infielder to take.