chpettit19

Free agency isn't the only way to spend money. Julien would've been the 2B I traded in a move that would've taken on salary while keeping Polanco and not spending money on Santana. Add in a FA like Hoskins for a very reasonable deal and I think the team would be significantly better than it is today without having to play in the deep end of the FA pool. Being ok with trading for the guys you were ok with them trading for, and not being all over the FO for not turning around and trading them again before they left (I'm not sure why you're counting Maeda as a RP, by the way) shows that you aren't as married to your strategy as you demand the rest of us be. I'm not sure why it's ok for you to think trading for Sonny was good, and not trading him before he left for nothing was ok, but it's crazy that some of us had a problem with the Polanco trade. To me, that isn't about your strategy at all and is just differing opinions about players and team capabilities. If it's ok to deviate from the strategy sometimes, why can't this be one of those times? If you really believed in the strategy so much you should've been all over them for a number of these moves. But you weren't. Because sometimes the smart thing is to go a little off script. I think in future discussions you should remember that you don't demand strict adherence to the strategy so you probably shouldn't go after others so aggressively when they question a move that doesn't fit perfectly in your strategy that you are now admitting isn't something that needs to be followed to the letter.

Impressive, truly. I openly acknowledged and accepted your data, and said I just want an answer to the question of whether or not you thought trading Polanco made the 2024 Twins better and your response is to not just answer the question, but to continue to harp on the data that I granted to you as being accurate and a good strategy for a shot at sustaining successful seasons. For someone who earlier in this thread typed out the sentences "I have asked every person taking this stance to tell me which player he starts in place of" and "So, don't ignore the question like everyone else and just tell where he starts" you sure are good at ignoring questions. You won't simply answer if trading Polanco made the 2024 Twins better or worse and you won't give us your lineups that show Polanco wouldn't play on this team everyday. I can only assume that your refusal to answer those questions is because your answers would be "it made the 2024 team worse" and "there aren't any lineups I could come up with that wouldn't have Polanco as an everyday player for the 2024 Twins." Justin Topa is a 32 year old reliever with 1 good MLB season and 3 bad, but short, ones. If that doesn't meet the definition of volatile reliever I don't know what does. Every major baseball writer/reporter/analyst in the country says the vast majority of relievers are volatile, fungible assets. 32 year olds with 1 good season are the exact reason why they say that. It's the reason the Twins don't spend money on relievers. Do you realize that you're advocating that it was smart for the Twins to trade the guy acquired before he produced a 1.5 WAR season to return multiple pieces (Topa and DeSclafani) for the 2024 Twins that have already produced 1.5 WAR seasons (which you say is a no no) and then trade for another one (Margot) and sign a 4th (Santana) while not non-tendering a 5th that they acquired via trade last year (Farmer) or trading away a 6th they signed last year for basically Polanco money (Vazquez)? And you haven't complained about them trading for Maeda, Mahle, Paddack, and Gray which goes against your strategy. Nor have you complained that they haven't traded Kepler, nor did they trade Maeda, Mahle, or Gray before they walked. Yet you claim "their actions tell me they quite aware of the facts I shared with the group and their decisions are driven by compelling evidence." Oh, and they signed Correa to multiple big money deals, also against your strategy. The vast majority of their moves go directly against your strategy, are you calling them incompetent because they don't follow your strategy in any meaningful way? My mind has been made up and very clearly established on my goal for the 2024 Twins. It was to not shoot themselves in their own foot while making an ALDS team worse, but instead to build on the momentum from 2023 and improve the team. I have no doubt you know this. I have been incredibly consistent in this stance from the very start of the offseason to when Falvey announced the payroll to decrease to the Polanco trade to Pohlad saying "right-size our business" to the signing of Santana and everything before, after, and in between those moves. The reason the 2024 Twins aren't likely capable of being a dominant team is because they chose to cut payroll (do not even think about starting a debate about finances on this thread, I'm simply stating it made the team worse this season not whether it was the right business decision) which lead to the trade of one of their best players for significantly less 2024 value, the retaining of a short side of a platoon bat for significantly more money than he's worth, the signing of a 38 year old 1B who can't hit righties to be an everyday player, and them making no move whatsoever to give them any sort of realistic chance of replacing their departing rotation pieces. Trading away Polanco is part of why the 2024 team doesn't have a very good chance of being dominant so you're just creating a circular logic to say trading him was smart. Yes, I'd be good with the Twins emulating what KC did to win the World Series. They're the team that went against your "trade veterans before they leave" strategy and it got them a title. If Gonzalez becomes Ronald Acuna Jr 2.0 in 2 years I'll eat my crow and say it was a great trade. Feel free to bring it up as much as you want. I'll take the fact that it's incredibly unlikely that he's ever a vital part of an MLB team and say that making the 2024 Twins worse instead of better was a bad decision. Yes, continually acquiring young, cheap talent is a vital part of the Twins being successful. Your research is not groundbreaking stuff as acquiring young, cheap talent is a vital part of literally 100% of MLB teams being successful, and they all know it. But trading veterans for young, cheap talent at certain times of your team building cycle is also a reason why none of your pet teams ever win titles. The Royals held their guys and won. Yes, I'd like the Twins to have taken that chance with Polanco. You don't have to agree. It's reasonable that you don't want to take the extra risk of the team falling apart after. I am willing to take that risk whether you find it reasonable or not. I am more than happy to acknowledge your research (again), but you also need to acknowledge that taking away from the current team to help the future team is, in fact, taking away from the current team and that those of us who dislike that strategy at certain times aren't ignoring your data or calling the FO incompetent or any of the other claims you make because we won't just say "yes, do whatever MLR says you should!" It is acceptable to think the Polanco trade was smart. It's also acceptable to dislike it. I think the vast majority of us who dislike it also acknowledge that they got good value for him, in a vacuum. It's just not the kind of value we want coming off an ALDS appearance.

"Speaking of Manny Margot, the Twins' usage of him to begin the season has been questionable. He has yet to start a game, regardless of the handedness of the pitcher the Twins face. " Manuel Margot was the Twins opening day, starting DH.

Did trading Jorge Polanco for prospects a volatile reliever and a broken starter make the 2024 Twins better or worse? Nobody has called them incompetent. They didn't trade Kepler and will lose him for nothing which goes against your strategy, would you call them incompetent for that? What about not trading Gray or Maeda? Are you calling them incompetent for that because they went against your strategy? Don't put words in other people's mouths. We can disagree with moves without it being us calling them incompetent. Did not trading those guys tell you they're "quite aware of the facts?" I do not refute that the best way for teams in the Twins financial situation to build consistently solid teams is to trade guys like Polanco for prospects. That is not what I'm disagreeing with. Which was the point of my rant. Trading Polanco for prospects made the 2024 team worse (in my, and apparently other's, opinion) while possibly helping in the future. You are the one refusing to acknowledge that because all you want to talk about is your research. Did that trade hurt or improve the 2024 Twins chances of improving upon their ALDS appearance from 2023? Don't tell us about your research or the future or anything else. Because, as my rant pointed out, that's not what others of us are talking about. We are talking about the 2024 Minnesota Twins. Did that trade help or hurt the talent level of the 2024 Minnesota Twins?

Some of us: "Trading Polanco for a broken starter, volatile reliever, and prospects hurt the 2024 Twins." You: "Yeah, but it may have helped the 2027 Twins!" Us: "We're talking about the 2024 Twins and how this trade effected them." You: "Yeah, but the facts say the 2027 Twins might be better." Us: "Yeah, we understand, but we're willing to take that chance to take a real shot at improving upon an ALDS team instead of making it worse." You: "But 'somebody' did a lot of research so we should talk about the 2027 Twins because that's what their research proves. So ignore what you're talking about and talk about what I want to talk about instead." Us: "We get it. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the 2024 Twins." You: "But 2027..." (Sub in any future year instead of 2027 if you'd like)

I never claimed Lee was ready, I simply pointed out your contradiction. He isn't good enough to push Farmer out of the way, but he is good enough to push Polanco out of the way. Polanco is a better player than Farmer so I'm confused as to how that logic works. Or maybe you disagree and think Kyle Farmer would bring back a similar type return because he's just as good? We can talk splits, though. Go look at Farmer's against righties and tell me you want him playing SS into the playoffs. In the scenario we're talking it would be dropping Farmer while keeping Polanco which means you then have Polanco behind Julien so I'm not sure why you'd say Castro is the only guy there. How much better is Farmer than Polanco as a SS option when you take into account their ability to hit righties? Farmer may be the better choice, but it's not like you're talking a significant gap there when you account for their hitting against righties (who constitute the majority of MLB arms), and Polanco is the better option as the overall player so he'd be the obvious better choice overall. And I think Lewis has played SS once or twice so he'd be another option. Not to mention all the other backup SS out there making much less than 6 million they could've gotten instead of Farmer. I don't know how many times multiple of us have to point out that Polanco wouldn't be taking playing time from Correa, Lewis, or Julien. They'd cycle people through the DH spot (you know, instead of using Manuel Margot there) and either Santana or Farmer wouldn't be on the roster depending on where they decided to save money so Polanco would be taking those ABs as well. Who has put Polanco in LF? I've suggested Kirilloff moving to LF with Polanco at 1B or 2B depending on who they want at first, him or Julien, but nobody has suggest Polanco in LF. You made that up on your own. And if they were comfortable moving both Arraez and Julien to 1B in the majors I'd think they'd be ok moving the former SS Polanco there. Show me the math on Polanco vs 5 guys. They got to keep Farmer, bring in a broken starter, a 32 year old reliever with 1 good MLB season, Margot, and a 38 year old 1B all for the cost of Polanco? I'm not sure you're calculating that right.

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.