2:15pm: Polanco will earn $3.583MM in 2019, $3.833MM in 2020, $4.333MM in 2021, $5.5MM in 2022 and $7.5MM in 2023, according to MLB Network’s Jon Heyman (Twitter link).
His 2024 club option is valued at $10.5MM with a $1MM buyout, while the 2025 option is worth $12.5MM with a $750K buyout. The first of those two options is also a vesting option that would automatically trigger if Polanco tallies 550 plate appearances in 2023. His base salaries on the option years can increase based on All-Star nominations, Gold Gloves and Silver Sluggers.
9:45am: Polanco’s deal will pay him $25.75MM over the next five years, and it also includes club options for the 2024 and 2025 seasons, per Jim Bowden of The Athletic (Twitter link).
8:34am: ESPN’s Jeff Passan tweets that the contract will cover a total of seven seasons, at least five of which are guaranteed. The deal will indeed be in the range of Ramirez’s extension with Cleveland, though it’s expected to exceed that $26MM guarantee by a bit.
7:50am: The Twins and shortstop Jorge Polanco are nearing the finalization of a contract extension, reports Jesse Sanchez of MLB.com (via Twitter). La Velle E. Neal III of the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported earlier this week that Minnesota was optimistic about reaching perhaps multiple contract extensions in the near future. The 25-year-old Polanco is represented by Octagon.
The switch-hitting Polanco was already under control for another four seasons and was not yet eligible for arbitration, but the new arrangement in question will presumably keep him in the fold longer than that. To this point in his career, the former top prospect has compiled a .272/.329/.420 slash line with 23 home runs, 64 doubles, 11 triples and 25 steals through 1167 plate appearances.
Polanco, long touted as a potential infield fixture for the Twins, got off to a dreadful start to his 2017 season, hitting just .213/.265/.305 through his first 310 plate appearances. He rebounded with a torrid final two months, hitting .316/.377/.553 to close out the year, though that production was met with some skepticism when Polanco was suspended for 80 games to open the 2018 season after testing positive for a banned substance (Stanozolol). Polanco hit well in his return from that suspension, though, slashing .288/.345/.427 with 27 extra-base hits in 333 plate appearances to close out the season.
While Polanco doesn’t post huge walk rates (7.5 percent in each of the past two seasons as well as in his overall career), he draws enough free passes and is a tough enough strikeout (16.2 percent) that there’s little doubt in his ability to consistently get on base. At the very least, he should be a useful source of batting average and on-base skills with modest pop and a bit of speed, though if he can tap into a bit more power, there’s perhaps room to take his game to another offensive level.
Defensively speaking, there was some question surrounding Polanco’s home on the diamond as he rose through the Twins’ system. While he was consistently given work at shortstop, some scouting reports felt he was best-suited for either second base or third base and would eventually have to move to either position. He hasn’t been a star defender at short thus far, but he’s held his own there over the past two seasons, with Defensive Runs Saved (-2) pegging him as below average but passable. Ultimate Zone Rating has been less kind (-8).
For the time being, with Jonathan Schoop at second base and Miguel Sano at the hot corner, Polanco will reprise his role as the team’s shortstop. It’s not difficult to envision a different alignment in the near future, however, with former No. 1 overall pick Royce Lewis soaring through the system and barreling toward the Majors with top 10 overall prospect fanfare. While Lewis is quite likely more than a year from reaching the game’s top level, he could usurp Polanco at shortstop when that happens, pushing him to either second base (depending on the status of former first-round pick Nick Gordon) or to third base (with Sano potentially slotting in at first base or DH).
Terms of the would-be extension aren’t yet known, but a look in MLBTR’s Extension Tracker could provide some useful context. Taking a look at other middle infielders with two to three years of service, Polanco has nearly the same service time that a pre-breakout Jose Ramirez had with the Indians when he signed a five-year deal worth a guaranteed $26MM (plus two options). Ramirez, to that point in his career, was a .275/.331/.404 hitter — numbers that closely resemble Polanco’s own .272/.329/.420 line.
From a payroll perspective, the Twins have zero issues fitting Polanco — or virtually any player in baseball — onto the long-term ledger. Minnesota is the only organization in MLB that doesn’t have a single guaranteed contract on the books for the 2020 season, with the only dollars they’re technically committed to beyond 2019 coming in the form of a $300K buyout on Nelson Cruz’s one-year contract.
The Polanco extension and any others — Max Kepler, Eddie Rosario and Jose Berrios are among other candidates for multi-year deals — will change that outlook, though chief baseball officer Derek Falvey and general manager Thad Levine will nonetheless have ample payroll space to make any moves they wish in the near future given that largely blank slate. If anything, the cost certainty added from a Polanco deal and any other extensions will only make it easier for the team to look at adding pieces from outside the organization, as they’ll paint a clearer picture of exactly how much money is being spent over the next several years.
Good. Berrios and Rosario will follow then maybe Gibson and odorizzi
Agreed on Berrios and Rosario, but I would put my money this being both Gibson’s and Odorizzi’s last year on the team. With good seasons from them we could potentially recoup some draft picks via qualifying offers.
a little surprised he got an extension after getting caught juicing just 11 months ago. at least the Twins can’t cry wolf if Polanco gets suspended again.
Pitches Love Velocity
Polanco was suspended for 80 games to open the 2018 season after testing positive for a banned substance (Stanozolol). Polanco hit well in his return from that suspension, though, slashing .288/.345/.427 with 27 extra-base hits in 333 plate appearances to close out the season.
If he gives the twins post suspension production like that it’s a good investment, assuming he stays clean.
So basically, he cheated (which makes him a thief) and the Twins don;t mind honoring that.
I guess that’s why the signed Cruz.
You don’t have a very forgiving nature? He was caught and he served his time (and lost money). He didn’t steal anything. $5 million a year is pretty cheap for a solid MLB player. It will be especially cheap a few years from now if he keeps performing in his prime. As to Cruz, he cheated and served his time. Cruz has excellent reputation in the club house, has had a good career and performed well after he returned from the suspension. If you believe his story, he took the PEDs to recover from a stomach virus that caused him to lose 40 pounds. Bad judgment, no doubt.
Mac — If you work in criminal justice, god help us all.
Can you name a team that hasn’t acquired a guy who was caught juicing?
Honestly I kind of agree. He seemed to improve after being caught using PEDs. Seems like the cheating paid off. Not a great example or deterrent for others when you reward this kind of stuff. I’m surprised so many are disagreeing with you macstruts
Forgiving nature or not, he’s a thief. He stole outs and wins from pitchers, which cost them money. He stole wins from other teams, Wins from other fans. and memories.
Those are things he can never give back. he can NEVER make restitution. He absolutely did steal. He stole just like a writer who plagiarizes someone else’s work.
These cheaters are thieves. It’s time that people started recognizing this.
Do you mean caught juicing and they acquired the player after he was caught? The Angels. I’m sure there are others.
I just don’t want to root for players that cheat.
Why? He can never give back what he stole. He can never make it right. But what’s worse few seem to care.
If people cared and there were some actual damages and restitution attached, I’d feel a lot better about it. But right now the penalty is really light.
Crime doesn’t pay, unless you happen to be a major league baseball player.
People look the other way on these things like it’s nothing. As long as people do that, there will be plenty of players who game the system by cheating.
There needs to be some sort of stigma and there doesn’t seem to be much of one. These are crimes and there are victims.
Ironically, there is a stigma for people who speak out against it.
Classy. But you made my point. There is more of a stigma for speaking out against these thieves than there is against the criminal who committed these crime.
And they are crimes and he is a criminal, and you won’t even acknowledge that.
Without looking anything up, the Angels acquired Cameron Maybin after his suspension. I’m sure there is others.
It’s the entitled generation, macstruts. “Let me do what I want, legal or not”
He paid the price – an 80-game suspension. It is the same as any other crime then, isn’t it? MOVE ON!
He was busted during Spring Training so how exactly did he steal anything?
Stanzolol is a steroid used for cutting weight. He could’ve gotten himself a little out of shape during the offseason and thought he needed a boost to drop those pounds. Obviously no steroid is preferable but given the timing/drug of choice that story probably fits reality.
It pays to juice..
Don’t blame any of these guys. Like why wouldn’t you?
Get to spend half a season with your family, and then get a huge payday for your production.
You’ll never get in the he-man woman haters club, err the Hall of “pretty good” but not as good as Bonds and Clemons”
It really is worth it… Every player has become better even once they stop they are better than they were before.
It’s almost like players still have to keep trying to improve even after taking steroids. I thought they were some magical drug that made you jacked while sitting on the couch eating potato chips. Learn something new every day.
Right. Between the suspension and just two years of play, this extension feels like it’s a year too early.
Except if you think highly of him and wait a year you could end up costing yourself a bunch of money. Imagine if they had signed Gibson 3 years ago to an extension and what he would have cost them and compare that to what it would cost to extend him now.
Hey great job cheating last year and using PED’s. Here’s an extension!
Polanco burned so much service time early, getting called up out of the low minors due to roster crunches. He’s gonna benefit from it now!
He burned a lot of options but not a lot of service time
I think his games played is wrong
Ha, yes. That should’ve been plate appearances. Fixed now. Thanks.
Not saying Polanco isn’t good, but his ceiling is “prime” Jason Kipnis, not exactly the first player I’d wanna hand an extension, especially coming off a year that contained a PED suspension…
Berrios and Rosario ‘should’ have new deals coming soon, that’s not my concern. My concern is that instead of Kepler, who has a higher ceiling (and has gained sabermetric support), the FO decided to hand an extension to somewhat questionable player (character/performance wise).
They’ll hand a deal to Kepler too. Along with Berrios and Rosario. And likely Gibson. On the Polanco deal, he’ll be moved to 2b eventually and locking up a quality infielder for 7 years on a relatively cheap deal is a good thing!!!
I don’t see Polanco as a questionable player outside of the PED suspension. Rosario was also suspended (not for PEDs) while in the minors, as you may remember. I think Polanco has been a good team mate other than for the PED suspension.
That “other than the PED suspension” is a pretty big deal
The main reason the risk/reward of PED use is still ongoing; “Mo Money, Mo Money, Mo Money”…
Yes. We should definitely take anybody behind the wood shed and shoot them in the head if we detect PEDs. That way, the punishment would be so unbelievably brutal, nobody would use PEDs anymore.
This line of thinking is draconian in nature. Polanco took Stanozolol. He got busted for it. The impact on his career was substantial. If he’s busted for taking PEDs again, the impact will be severe.
The policy is working.
“The impact on his career was substantial.”
Not really, he’s still guaranteed $26 million.
“If he’s busted for taking PEDs again, the impact will be severe.”
Sort of. I mean he’ll lose a year’s pay, but will still be a multi millionaire.
Free Clay Zavada
Congrats, you managed to use a straw man argument and still not be even somewhat convincing in your comment.
The policy is not working because it’s not a deterrent for almost anyone. There’s no reason that first time offender can’t get a one year ban and second year offender is banned for life with no opportunity to be reinstated. What does the game lose by implementing that?
If you get caught using PEDs your contract should be null and void. Then you should have to play for the league minimum for 1 year. If you stay clean for that year you can discuss a new contract. Dee Gordon signed a big contract after a great year. The next season he gets nailed. So you could say he used PEDs then got his reward and was caught after it was too late.
What straw man? Do you know what a straw man argument is? It’s when an off topic argument is brought into a conversation to shift focus away from the original debate or statement.
The original statement was it pays to cheat. My rebuttal was cheating is met with significant (not unfairly brutal) sanctions with monetary implications and players are getting caught. That means the system is working.
Polanco was slated to have the starting SS job out of Spring Training. He lost 80 games to prove himself and got $5M a year after the season. If Polanco had a full season at SS, he would have a 3 WAR season under his belt and he’s NOT signing a $5M/yr contract after a 3 WAR season. See Kepler, Max. Same basic production for Polanco as Kepler if Polanco doesn’t have the suspension. Kepler got $10M more playing a position which is easier to replace.
I guess I consider a 30% reduction in his contract ($10M) pretty substantial.
Free Clay Zavada
Dude, what you just described is a non-sequitir…a straw man argument is an intentional misrepresentation of an argument to make it easier to beat. Nobody said they wanted to hang someone or do anything drastic to them if they cheated, yet you pretended as if they did.
You could’ve just googled it in one second, but yeah…guess I’m not surprised
Your speculation on contract value is…well…let’s call it questionable to be generous
Polanco’s probably not going to be. A SS for long. Given his desire to already take stanzolol (winstrol)to cut weight I wouldn’t be surprised if that becomes a problem. He was a passable SS but he’s never been particularly good out there. It’s not as if that’ll get better as he gets older and larger. He also need a .345 BABIP to post his slash line last year. That’s a bit higher than you’d like to see and makes you think if that type of production is sustainable at that level. Kepler on the other hand plays fantastic outfield defense and has an offensive profile that is already decent enough with the defense. But his underlying numbers suggest there’s a good amount of room for improvement. Not hard to see the valuation difference.
There’s a big difference between shooting someone behind the woodshed and rewarding them with a big payday. Should a player be outright banned after their first offense? No, in my opinion. Should they get a big extension less than a year later? Also no.
It’s not really a risk/reward thing. PEDs and any other illegal advantage will always be taken by players in this type of hyper-competitive setting. It’s the reason that amphetamines were rampantly used in the 70s, that pitchers doctored the ball for decades, that players have corked their bats, etc.
Cheating, in some capacity, always has been and always will be a part of baseball (or any other pro sport, for that matter).
Tom E. Snyder
Or any other part of life, for that matter.
People are people and some of them are cheaters, but not all. I have zero respect for cheaters and would have no respect for myself if I cheated.
Half of the players in the Hall of Fame have been cheaters in one capacity or another, from corking bats, to amphetamines, to animal testosterone, to steroids, to spitballs and gunk-and grease balls, to doctoring balls, to throwing games. From Tim Raines to Robin Yount to Willie Mays to Whitey Ford to Mickey Mantle to Babe Ruth to Ty Cobb to Pud Galvin there have been some pretty provable cheating going on in the sport. Protocols are now in place and we work with what we got.
And those that get so high and mighty, I just don’t understand. We all do it. All of us. No exceptions. Some just do it more often or in a higher capacity. I think we need to forgive Polanco. If he gives us a reason not to trust him in the future, we deal with it at that time.
Free Clay Zavada
The lack of ability (or disinterest) to identify cheaters in the past should have nothing to do with how we look at them today, I can never understand this argument.
And yes, protocols are in place, but they’re not deterrents. If they’re not deterring almost anyone, there’s no point.
Who says they are not deterring people? You know more than anyone else, huh? That is the argument I don’t understand it — the “not being a deterrent argument.” It makes no sense. It is quite clear it is a HUGE deterrent. EVERYONE gets tested multiple times during a 365 day period. If you cheat, intentionally or not, you will very likely get caught. And I do understand that there will be attempts to mask cheating and whatnot. But that will always be the case. And we will always responses from uninformed people who, no matter what, think protocols are not a deterrent. They clearly are a huge deterrent. Why don’t the cynics just come and say, “Yeah, but everyone is still cheating. I promise. I know because I am connected to the collective unconscious of all of humanity and can read the minds of all the major league baseball players. And their unconscious minds tell me that they don’t even think about baseball anymore. They just think about cheating.”
Free Clay Zavada
Because there’s no clear proof it’s done anything. Point me to some evidence that PED use has gone down. People still get busted just as regularly and there’s no reason to think the amount of people who are doing it and aren’t getting caught has decreased. The burden of proof is on those who want to show the policy has helped, you can’t just say it has worked because there isn’t proof it hasn’t…
Silly goose. You have to start somewhere. There are no records pre mid 2000s because there was no protocol in place. But what you can do is look at the leaked lists/reports (like the Mitchell Report) of alleged PED users. Assuming those lists are somewhat accurate and merely a percentage of the players that were using, we are clearly talking well over a hundred players using PEDs, if not hundreds (plural). Are hundreds of players getting caught today? No. Are dozens getting caught today? No. Obviously, it is working. You can tell by simply looking at the players. Is there still cheating? Yes. Will there always be cheating? Yes.
In fact, I looked up the numbers. Let’s assume over a hundred players would have been busted in 2004, based on the Mitchell Report. I think everyone can agree on that. In 2005, 11 people were suspended. It fluctuates up and down, with 2005 being the high mark, and 2013 having 9 people busted (biogenesis scandal). Since 2016, the numbers have been 8, 2017 – 2, 2018 – 3. Numbers are clearly down from the 2004 timeframe. How could you argue not? And some players probably beat the system and don’t get caught, but I also think that there have been other players that were busted and had no clue why or how they tested positive.
Free Clay Zavada
That’s only because nothing to the scale of the Mitchell report has been done since, for various reasons. If another player with similar knowledge spoke out, I have no doubt hundreds would be named. You may not, but either way, your argument isn’t valid because you’re using a unique case to assert your point
EVERY player gets tested EVERY year. There is nothing unique about that. It is a mundane yearly process. Do you not understand this? Will you just come out and spell what you really want to say?
Let me help. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but you think that despite the current drug policy, in which EVERY player gets tested twice a year, you think — some? many? most? indeterminate amount? — players are somehow using Science and excellent timing to beat these tests and make it seem like they are not taking PEDs when they really are. Did I get that right?
Okay. what LEGAL procedural changes via the collective bargaining process would you make that would satisfy your cynicism? In all honesty, I want to know. Educate and inform me please. I truly mean that.
Free Clay Zavada
Asking condescending questions doesn’t help drive your point home, even if you really think it does.
Testing on its own is NOT a deterrent when it’s so easy to go undetected. Very simple.
My suggested change is full year ban for first time offender and lifetime ban with no chance for reinstatement for multiple violations
I am NOT being condescending. You are projecting. I promise. I am asking questions because I am curious and it is in my nature. My understanding is that baseball has pretty good protocols in place and that the testing does a pretty good job. Obviously, it won’t get everyone.
How do you know it is so easy to go undetected? Did you just pull that out of a hat? Is that a rumor? Do you have proof? Please inform me.
I don’t see how your only recommendation would be fair. I think the current policy is quite tough as it is. 80 game ban. Full season ban. Three strikes you are out. And if you are correct about it being so easy to go undetected, how are even more draconian measures going to help if people are going undetected in the first place?
I feel like I just went in a circle and we aren’t getting anywhere. Have the last word but I think I am done unless you offer me some proof instead of just giving me rumor.
Free Clay Zavada
In hindsight, it’s really my fault for bothering to respond to someone who calls himself Tipsy McStagger. Your supposed curiosity is just pompousness in disguise.
I’ll leave you on that, good night sir
FYI — It is a Simpson’s reference. Don’t judge a person by their handle. I apologize if I was pompous. I mean that. That was not my intent. I still am curious, though, about your claims. Send me a link or two if you have anything. THanks. Good night.
Free Clay Zavada
Ok, if you are genuinely curious I’ll break down my thought process. Just FYI, calling someone “silly goose”, mockingly quoting them, and asking accusatory questions is probablyyyy condescending. Just so you know for any future interactions you have with human beings.
Anyway, let me summarize my thoughts in a few bullet points:
– A complexity of this argument is the lack of clear data on either side. The amount of players who use and don’t get caught is a HUGE part of this and there’s no way to measure that. The other potential data point would be the amount of people being caught going down. I haven’t seen clear evidence of that either. I don’t consider the Mitchell Report valid evidence because those people were not caught under normal means. I wish I could provide you with more concrete proof but airtight proof simply does not exist on either side.
– The current rules in place are not a deterrent because the risk/reward is out of whack. As another commenter above said, you can’t blame anyone for using steroids because it will drastically improve their earning potential on average. And if you get suspended, so what? Still a millionaire, and still have potential to make 100 million or more in the rest of your career as long as you produce.
– I very much acknowledge that you can never eliminate cheating, but why are we convinced that this is the best we can do? If you can logically justify cheating based on risk/reward calculations coming out in your favor, the rules probably are not strict enough.
I will leave aside your personal thoughts about my actions. I will say I should not have called you a silly goose. Sorry about that. Let’s move on.
I still don’t understand your argument. We both agree that cheating is going on. We both seem to agree that some players game the system using Science and timing. You seem to be claiming this problem is somewhat rampant and that testing is virtually meaningless, or at least not much of a deterrent.
My question is, how do you know this to be true? Are you making assumptions? Did you read about it? Did someone tell you? You are making a claim but I don’t see any evidence. I can’t just take your word for it. So, please, how do you know that this problem is as big as you think it is? Or how about this — are other sports writers postulating such claims elsewhere?
I have to assume that the process is working fine until something or someone comes along and tells me otherwise. That has not happened yet. I know it is isn’t perfect, and we both agree it never can be, but I think it is very clear PEDs are not even close to the problem they were in the Mitchell Report days. One look at the players makes that painfully obvious (which is not proof per say, but a somewhat anecdotal piece of evidence).
Now your other major point that by making the offenses more draconian, it will help deter cheating. I don’t buy that argument. Let me explain why. First off, if what you think is true is actually true and players are using Science to mask or doping or timing or fill in the blank, and thus are not showing up positive on test results (when they should be), how are more draconian offenses going to help? THey’ll just keep gaming the system and not get punished.
Secondly, on this point, I do believe that some players quite accidentally get busted with no ill will or intent to cheat. Part of that may be carelessness or accidental, and I think there may be some cases where it could be just a complete unknown. A high percentage obviously are intending to cheat, but I do think there is a difference between those who unintentionally cheat and those who do with purpose.
Thirdly — Forgiveness. There are all sort of political, cultural, societal, personal, even religious/spiritual pressures and reasons that get thrown around telling every human being that you need to do whatever it takes to get ahead. Our darn country is based on that premise. That is capitalism in a nutshell. Do you think the founders of this country, the titans of industry, the wallstreet billionaires got where they are by not taking and cheating? Of course they did. Cheating is in this country’s DNA.
And for many players it can mean the difference between being a factory worker or subsistence farmer and a chance to make a million dollars. Or it can mean the difference between a borderline major leaguer and a starter. So, I get the pressure to take PEDs.
I don’t defend the cheaters. But I understand why. I understand the pressure. Our whole darn culture is awash in it. You may disagree with me on this, but that is my opinion. And as a result, I think empathy and forgiveness are important. I also think the punishments are bad enough as it is. A player misses 100 games and the playoffs and collects no pay for one offense. A whole season for a second offense. And a third offense gets you a lifetime ban. I don’t know of another team sport with policies that strict. Do you?
And once again, your point about PEDs and earning potential is valid, but it is only valid if the process doesn’t work. So, I once again ask you, how do you know it isn’t working? You could very well be right, but we need proof.
Been following this thread for a bit. I think Tipsy should not have called Free Clay a goose, or whatever and that collective unconsciousness comment was weird, but I get it. In a roundabout way you were saying that Free Clay isn’t mind reader and couldn’t possibly know whether cheating is rampant without evidence. Kudos to you Tipsy for just asking the questions. I see a lot of commenters make assumptions that cannot be backed up about how bad cheating is in the sport. You need more than a hunch or an assumption, even if you are right about that hunch. You aren’t walking in the woods and debating which trail to take based on a hunch. You are essentially accusing MLB of being full of double cheaters — those who take performance-enhancing drugs and then cheat by covering it up. I’m with Tipsy – prove it. Do you have anything to go on? The best example is maybe the Biogenesis scandal, though I think some of those players were or would have been busted by testing positive anyways.
Free Clay Zavada
Ok so I don’t intend to make this personal, but a lot of characteristics of how you argue make it unpleasant to go back and forth with you. I’m not talking about condescension as you certainly did tone this down in the last comment. More about how you try to assert your point over another’s. Let me summarize:
– You tend to shift the burden of proof to the other side. This is very common, and it’s a tactic that works against almost anyone without formal debating experience. But it’s not logically helpful. Let me summarizing the things you’ve asked/demanded of me in your last comment alone:
1. How I know what I’m saying is true. This is something you’ve never shared.
2. You asked if my opinion was substantiated in mass media somewhere. You’ve never linked or referred to something that helps make your argument.
3. Concrete evidence. I do admit that you tried to provide this with your Mitchell Report example, but it was a very poor attempt in my opinion. I could try too, but know it would be futile. The data just isn’t there. I hate nothing more than making conclusions off shoddy data points. If the quantitative data isn’t of high quality, you have to make the argument some other way.
– Assumptions. You take your own assumptions as de facto truth while taking mine with a grain of salt at best. Below is a pristine example.
“I have to assume that the process is working fine until something or someone comes along and tells me otherwise.”
Why?? You provided no support of why you have to assume this. Is someone pointing a gun to your head? Is it part of your spiritual compass? Do you not feel good about yourself if you don’t believe it? (Tried out your rapid question thing, kinda fun).
Or, how about this one:
“You could very well be right, but we need proof.”
We need proof, yes, but why do I need to provide it? If anything, the status quo (high steroid usage) should be the null hypothesis and the burden should be on you to prove things have changed. It makes no sense to assume something has changed without proof, but you can assume something has stayed the same without a ton of proof (e.g., there’s probably gonna still be gravity on Earth in 5 minutes, I don’t need to do a formal experiment to prove it every time.)
3. Asking tons of questions/general aggression. This serves to overwhelm the other side. You ask a ton of questions to force me to answer all of them while answering far less or none of yourself. You also consistently say you don’t understand my argument as if I didn’t lay it out clearly…but you proceed to accurately address it point by point, so seems like it was sufficiently clear to me. This is the closest of the three to a valid tactic (you will see it in court all the time) but it’s kind of underhanded.
I think that’s the best I can do to address your admittedly coherent and well thought out comment. I think as a debater you put yourself in a position where it’s very difficult to change your mind and you ask a lot of the other person. I myself used to do this and still do it at times today. It will lead to us going back and forth and only affirming our own opinions more. But in my opinion, that should not be the purpose of debate – it should be a search for the truth, whether you have it now or you’ll have it later. I very much want to question my own beliefs and advance them!
Also, your philosophy of the origin of the US was a fun read! I agree with some of it, but not really germane to the topic at hand, sorry.
“Cheaters never prosper”
The biggest lie I was taught in elementary school.
I know people hate it when anything “non-baseball” is brought into a discussion, but the whole American Empire was based on taking and cheating. It is built into the country’s DNA.
Polanco is one of the worst shortstops in baseball right now due to his weak arm and his propensity to commit errors while trying to make up for that arm. He carries a career UZR/150 of -12.2. That said, his range is fine and when he moves to the position he should be playing (2B) there’s no reason to think he won’t be a plus defender there as there will be less pressure.
I’m a little surprised the Twins are moving to lock him up so quickly, but I guess they must be interested in a smoke and mirrors show for fans.
I think Polanco’s defense improved dramatically in 2018 but think he’s an average shortstop. However, I think his errors are more related to his poor fundamentals. He rarely has his feet set under him and too often threw in a slinging motion. In 2018, his fundamentals were better, much to my surprise. I agree that he is better suited to play 2B though and Gordon may eventually replace him at SS and shift Polanco to 2B.
if wada were to test mlb players, not many will be playing.
Damn. I got really excited for a moment… I thought Placido came out of retirement. Go Twinkies!!!
This is a great move by the Twins. He is an excellent contact hitter. He may never be an All-Star, but he has all the ability to have a nice long productive career.
I agree, solid move by the FO. Lock him up long term with $$ amount that will not prevent trading him in later years if needed ..
Until the new CBA is in place, we might see a lot of these types of contracts agreed to. It makes sense for both parties.
I think the Jose ramirez link is wrong.
Now, hopefully front-load the heck out of this contract,
and do the same for several others.
Polanco has a nice, solid all around game. Sure he looks to be better suited at 2B but holds his own at SS. The PED thing is over. He served his time. I hope for a bright future for him. All around guys are a lot more fun to watch than the Khris/Chris Davis of the sport.
surrounding all around guys with the Khris Davis types is what you need to do. Get guys on base in front of them, and then watch the magic happen.
2b of the future.
Can anyone say, Byron Buxton?
I don’t think he’ll get a deal yet. He certainly hasn’t earned one. Which will likely sour his relationship with the team even further.
After not calling him up in September for service time reasons, I’d imagine he’s already pretty sour. He also hasn’t performed so both sides probably aren’t inclined.
I think this is a very good move for the Twins. The estimated amount is reasonable and I think Polanco is very much the engine that drives this team–he’s a productive player, in my opinion, and his defense (my main gripe about him) actually has shown signs of improving. If Buxton and Sano reach their potential, the Twins could be a playoff contender for several years.
they traded the engine that drove the team to the Diamond backs
I’m not a Twins fan, i’m not all that familiar with Polanco, but this seems like a terrific move. Locking him up for 5-7 years at $5MM/season…doesn’t seem like you could go wrong, there.
The Twins have the right idea. Lock down these young guys for cheap (with uncertainty in FA) and have plenty of money to add some All-Stars. I just wonder why the Twins haven’t pursued any FA’s harder? Regardless, from the outside looking in, these look like good moves.
Interesting with Polanco, Lewis and Gordon they have a slightly crowded infield. I think all 3 have legit staying/starting talent, it will be interesting to see how they are used. Buxton/Gordon/Polanco/Lewis all have incredible stolen base potential!
In the previous extension post, I completely forgot about Polanco. Definitely like this extension. I think he’s underrated. Lots of Twins fans clamor for Gordon but I don’t know why at all. Polanco is better and I think he’ll always be better.
Maybe I’m underrating Gordon, but he should have been traded two years ago. Hopefully I’m wrong, because I wouldn’t mind a logjam of too many good players.
To Bad for Twins fans they lock up an average at best player for years to come 2023 Yuk
The top NHL players make half as much as the top MLB players, but mid tier MLB free agents are now making less than mid tier NHL free agents. And the NHL has a higher minimum salary. In a sport that generates half as much revenue.
The union has focused solely on the needs of it’s richest members. With predictable results.
.288/.345/.427 with 27 extra-base hits in 333 PA or would you prefer .274/.338/.514 with 55 extra base hits in 408 PA..
one of these guys was traded .. one was extended..
“someoldguy” seems to be a pretty accurate of your “old man” type comment. The guy that was traded was set to be a free agent and the other was under team control for multiple years. Also, they tried to extend the “guy” that was traded, but he had no interest in signing.
Guess who believes the propaganda put out by the FO.. in fact They didn’t offer him an extension.. and the normal course is to extend before they are in the dregs of their walk season.. Just like they didn’t offer Dozier..
Polanco can flat out HIT!
I wouldn’t be surprised if he wins a batting title yet.
It pays to cheat, kids.
Interesting extension with the presence of Nick Gordon and Royce Lewis in the wings. I wonder if the eventual plan is for one of them to play 3B with Sano moving to first or DH after Cruz is gone. We’ll see but I like both extensions today. Hopefully more coming up. Would love to see Rosario, Berrios.
I think the upside for Gordon is no longer the upside it used to be. They aren’t over him and have hopes, but I think Polanco will prove better in time over Gordon.