CCHOF5yearstoolate

I'm pretty sure the 'writer' who rips off Gleeman the most is not with Twins Daily... anymore

Crazy clickbait article. Buck has consistently said he's never waiving his NTC, and nothing Cory said even remotely hints otherwise. Remember the last time Cory made a prediction about what was happening to the team? Loved not having any blackouts this season!

Money grubbing thieves from the very start, this family. Nothing ever changes.

I'm not sure what you aren't understanding here.

Julien was an intentional comp, and he was even worse in the field than Julien was. And he's largely been relegated to DH this year.

Polanco has had 2 above average months in a Mariners uniform. He was the only player in the return and was a negative asset for the Mariners last season - the only year he was under contract. As an expiring contract, he really didn't have much value. Gabby was a slightly above league average hitter in a pitcher friendly league least year, and he significantly improved compared to his time in High-A in the Mariners system in '23. His defense was never a calling card, but a year in which he was dealing with a lower back issue doesn't automatically relegate him to DH unless you're just assuming the worst possible outcome. Once again, he's played more this year than he did last year. Which sample size means more? When grading the trade, I think it's fair to compare the received values against each other. The Twins have received about a season of decent, albeit low leverage, relief pitching and a top 100 prospect for a replacement/below replacement season of a middle infielder. Something for nothing is a win in my book.

Polanco's OPS was 35 points better than Julien's last year and he was one of the worst defenders in MLB. He was a negative asset. I don't agree they were "counting on" DeSclefani. He was a #5 at most. Gabby was just about average at High-A last year and has more PAs this year with a top-30 OPS among qualified batters above rookie ball. Not sure why you're minimizing what he's shown.

If eating DeSclafani's contract was the cost for getting Gonzalez, you do that 100/100 times. Money is fungible - someone should tell the Pohlads.

Said it at the time and I'll say it again, that was a great trade. An expiring contract and Polanco hit .213/.296/.355 in that final year under contract. To get a top 100 prospect for 1 (awful) year of Polanco was highway robbery.

Next year he'll turn the corner against lefties after seeing a few more!

The dripping condescension throughout this pearl-clutching post is very funny, and quite obviously hypocritical.

As much as I detest how gambling has permeated the entire sports ecosystem, fans betting on games is in no way comparable to players or managers, or player-managers, gambling on games they have direct influence over. In my opinion this is an extremely lazy attempt to brush what Pete Rose did under the rug.

It really is this simple. Even if you cling to Rose only betting on his team to win, he certainly managed those games differently than he managed games in which he didn't bet on his team to win. You can't do that, end of story. It's called the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. Pete and his on-field accomplishments are already in the museum. That's what he deserves.

Wow bunting is such a good strategy!!!

Sure, why not