chpettit19

Way too small of a sample size to say anything about anything here. Definitely need to pick it up with runners in scoring position, but before yesterday they were actually doing much better at not racking up Ks. To show how volatile numbers are this early in the season, though, they went from 22nd in K% through 5 games (22.4%) to 6th in K% through 6 games (25.2%). I've been pretty vocal that I don't think this offense is as good as many others seem to, and no Lewis is going to make it even worse, but it's way too early to make any judgements about anything. Let's get a month into this before we start trying to draw even loose conclusions about anything.

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.

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.

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.

I know he was standing in the shadow, but Naylor sure didn't look like it was bothering him just now. Kepler looked like he had no idea the guy even threw the ball until it was at the plate. Yikes.

Right-sizing his donations.

That's how simple it is? Man, you better let Rocco know it's that simple so he stops hitting the guy doing "truly lousy" in the leadoff spot (where he's got him set to hit in 2 hrs). Awfully weird strategy to hit him there if the strategy is so simple that it's just that he's "doing truly lousy." Margot is doing so well that his confidence is so sky high that he laid down a 2 out, bases loaded bunt instead of trying to hit. Got it. Very simple indeed.

Wow. I can't even begin to fathom how this logic is supposed to work. You're mad that many of us disagree with the move and your counter argument is that Julien has struggled against righties this year despite the fact that it was a lefty on the mound and thus Margot had the better odds?

It's such a terrible market that they got a top 100 prospect for him? Come on. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Polanco had no value yet he returned value. They didn't have to trade him. They chose to trade him because, in their words, they were getting help for the present and the future. Only the present "help" included an injured starting pitcher that you, and many others, are now suggesting they didn't really want in the first place even though that's a direct contradiction to their words and actions.

The Twins didn't believe he was a viable MLB starter yet they said he was a viable starter and didn't attempt to bring in any other major league starters? That doesn't track. If the Twins didn't think he was a viable starter why didn't they bring in Michael Lorenzen? Or Mike Clevinger? The situation actually points directly to the Twins believing he was a viable starter like they said they believed and acted like they believed. Not to mention that in your very next comment you mention that "Descalfani was here in case Louie and SWR and Festa fell down" which would suggest that they thought he was a viable starter. You know, since he couldn't go to AAA like everyone else you named.

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.

Find me a quote where I called it their best team. And, as I've told you at least 100 times, my goal is to win a championship. So winning a playoff series is more important to me than regular season record, so, to me (doesn't have to be for you), it was their best season (notice the word season is different than the word team) in 2 decades. And then you can ask the fans which season they enjoyed the most over the last 2 decades and see if anyone else was more excited about the fact that they "happened to win a playoff series" in 2023 instead of the seasons where they won more regular season games, but had a record setting playoff losing streak. I'd bet you find a couple folks that agree with me. I'm not using any projection at all. I was having a general conversation with another poster that didn't include any projection but was just using general numbers and you decided to jump in in an attempt to play some "gotchya!" game with me to catch me in a contradiction. That didn't work so now you're changing the conversation completely. Not interested in playing your game. Have a wonderful day.

The playoff wins were the best part in 2 decades, not the 87 wins. And that 87 win team wasn't particularly close to a championship, which is what I've spent all offseason saying I wanted and said I wanted in this thread. And now we're talking about 85 wins which is worse than 87 by my math, but I'm not the numbers genius you are so maybe I'm wrong there. Have your firm confirm that and let me know. And my complaint has been about taking the wind out if their own sails and hurting ticket sales by cutting payroll and making the team worse. So my statement about them trying to fill the stadium all year by striving to improve upon an 87 win team sure seems to follow that logic. Glad I could help clear up your confusion. Oh, and the fact that an 87 win season was their best in 2 decades speaks to how terribly their strategy has worked. Thanks for pointing that out.

I'd be less upset with taking the chance in the 4th if it were a better hitter than Margot who wasn't going to lay down a bunt. That's not a "break the game open" move, it's a "play for 1 run in the 4th while hurting your lineup for the 5th inning on" move.

Why don't they try to fill Target Field all season? Dave St Pete complains that fans don't show up and then they go out and build teams that struggle to stay above .500 until August. Why don't they try getting more fans all season by building a team with 100 win aspirations? Will they? Wallner was performing and didn't get called up for good until Gallo went down for good. They had even better guys in AAA last year than they do this year and got to a whopping 87 wins in an historically bad division with this strategy. Because they won't move on from the below average depth at the major league level. They aren't going to DFA Margot or Santana or Farmer so it's all injury based promotions. Injuries will obviously happen, but waiting for them isn't really how you reach your potential, it's how you maintain your mediocre 85 win pace.

No. I'm judging the process by Baldelli and the decision to put Margot in in the 4th simply because he was right handed. I would've been happier with the results if he'd been safe, but it wouldn't have changed my mind that putting in a guy who thought his best chance to succeed there was to bunt is a bad decision. If it were the 7th or 8th I may have felt different, but the 4th inning of a game that is by no means out of reach is too early to take one of your best hitters out for your worst hitter who then lays down a 2 out bunt. I'm sure somebody asked Rocco about the decision and I'll have to see if I can find what he said. Would love to hear the thought process.

I didn't like the pinch hit move at all, but I'd guess Margot bunted on his own. But the fact that you're putting in a guy who feels like he needs to bunt with 2 outs and the bases loaded says enough about the decision to use him as a pinch hitter. In the 4th inning no less. A guy who feels their best chance there is to lay one down is not a guy I want in my lineup for the rest of the game. Or ever, really.

Generally speaking teams that win closer to 100 games have a better chance at winning a championship. I want a championship. Building for floor doesn't make me confident they'll get closer to that goal. And banking on your division being weak is the least impressive team building process I've ever heard of. I don't disagree that it's part of their thought process, and am not taking a shot at you, it's just the worst reasoning I can think of. Cleveland won 92 games in 2022. Chicago won 93 in 2021. Cleveland 93 in 2019 and 91 in 2018. None of that is to suggest I'm predicting anyone in the central wins 90 games in 2024. It does show that aiming for 85 wins because you're in a bad division can very quickly turn into winning 85 games and losing your division, though.

Brock Stewart has 2 career MLB saves. Griffin Jax has 6. You're putting an awful lot of weight into 6 saves in 4 years. And, as I pointed out, the lefty pitcher wouldn't have faced a single lefty in the 7th so I'm not sure how you think that's a better matchup for a lefty pitcher. It wasn't a 1 run game. At this point you just seem to be trying to find ways to confirm your Rocco bias and are creating situations that didn't actually happen in an attempt to be mad at him.

Niko Goodrum wasn't making the roster over Miranda or Severino. Balazovic sitting in the pen pitching mop up duty for a month doesn't worry me so I won't even make the argument that they'd still have Jackson because I can't imagine their budget is so tight they couldn't afford the extra 750k for Jackson over Balazovic. Offensively it would be Hoskins, Martin, and Miranda instead of Santana, Farmer, and Margot. I'll take my chance at the ceiling of Hoskins over the guaranteed floor of 3 short side platoon bats. The problem with the 3 below average guys instead is that you've given yourself no shot at a high ceiling from the very beginning. You're handicapping yourself in the name of being able to survive being handicapped. I'd prefer to take the big swing and at least have the chance of finding big time success. All the Margot, Santana, Farmer trio does is improve your chances of not losing 100 games. Doesn't increase your chance of winning 100. I want the increased chance of winning 100 with the added risk of losing 100.

The game wasn't closer, though, so why does that matter? The Twins had a 3 run lead when they brought Stewart in to face 2 righties and a lefty, but the Brewers responded by pinch hitting so it turned into 2 lefties. Had Okert been in they would've likely let the righty hit to start the inning, then pinch hit for the lefty and had the 2 righties at the top of the order up. Okert wouldn't have faced a single lefty until Yelich. As others have pointed out it was very important to have a shutdown inning after they took the lead. I think it's awfully reasonable to go with your 2nd best current reliever instead of your lefty specialist who wouldn't face any lefties until his 5th batter of the inning. I did strongly dislike the pinch hitting decision. But the pinch running one made sense since they were going to put Martin in for a defensive replacement in the next half inning anyways. Why not add the extra speed on 3rd instead of waiting to just put him in on defense?

If the Twins don't have anyone outside of Jax and Stewart in the current pen that can get 3 outs in the 9th with a 4 run lead their pen isn't any good. Or even 3 runs if the Twins hadn't added on.

So you believe having Helman as the 4th or 5th guy called up at any given position while having Hoskins in your everyday lineup would be worse than having Santana and Margot in your everyday lineup? Because those Helman and Isola types aren't the next guy up. They're the 4th or 5th guy up. If you're going through that many guys you're likely doomed anyways. The addition of Santana and Margot types doesn't really push the Helman and Isola types significantly deeper. The Twins had 19 guys get at least 50 PAs last year. 20 in 2022. 20 in 2021. 16 in 2019. 21 in 2018. 15 in 2017. They currently have 19 position players on their 40 man. Catchers are hard to factor in, but the Twins had been carrying numerous former major leaguers in AAA the last few years. But as for the IF OF types, they have 16 guys on the 40-man right now. Brooks Lee isn't on it so he's a 17th guy. Many of them can play multiple positions. By the time you're getting to Alex Isola for any real time your season is probably already in the tank. What combination of injuries are required to get Alex Isola playing a vital role in the Twins season? I'd argue having a star player with 500 PAs outweighs the #18-20 guys on the roster getting 50 PAs each. Does 500 PAs of Isola cancel out the contributions of 500 PAs of Hoskins? For sure. But Isola wouldn't be getting 500 PAs because replacing Santana and Margot with Hoskins and Martin (or Larnach or whoever) to start the year doesn't jump Isola to the top of the depth chart it moves him up 1 spot.

He stands in the correct batters box.

That's the point of the top prospect. If Polanco can bring back a top 100 prospect he can certainly be paired with 1 (plus top 10-20 system guys) to get a real pitcher.