Article: Bullpen Calculus

[jokin]

 

After four lousy seasons, the transition back to being a competitive (.500ish) club is as much psychological as physical.  As such, my guess is that the Twins are trying to find a balance between going all in for young upside (with the potential to crash & burn) and trying to put their most competitive foot forward in April/May to try to foster a "this year is going to be different" attitude.  The point is that, for them, I don't think the short-run is completely irrelevant, which is why these decisions are not easy ones.

 

And that is the sad point-  it's just about impossible/ and actually a contradiction in terms-  you can't be a rebuilding team with the expectation of putting your most competitive feet forward.  The "short-run" should be completely irrelevant or you just end up extending the "long run" quest to relevance.

 

And really, they've been going just about "all-in" with a lot of substandard major league and AAAA journeyman and cut-rate veterans the last three years, and they've always reached their full potential of "crash and burn."

Edited March 26, 2015 by jokin

[jokin]

 

 How long is depth more important than quality?

 

How long have you got?  With the slight exception of Ervin Santana, they seem locked into the same bad habits of roster management-  

 

bringing in- and even extending- lesser recycled veterans,

bringing up layers of even lesser recycled "prospects",

along with signing some familiar Twins names from the past-

 

hoping for a little "Twins Way" magic to effervesce upon the rest of the squad and somehow make all of the 90+ loss seasons go away.

[REPETE]

My hope is they keep Graham on the major league roster, if for no other reason than he wears stirrups.  

I do have to say, it's nice to be talking about keeping a 5th starter, not because of potential, or the future, but the fact they may actually do something, like win 10 games.  Last year, they kept Gibson (against ALL odds).  This year, by all accounts, Milone & Pelf (besides his last outing) have looked good.  They could do worse things than send the youngster down for a month or two, as whoever they keep will know they are on double secret probation.

[twinsajsf]

 

Stauffer wasn't good last year, was he? He got grit and he's a veteran though. I didn't like the signing at all. My opinion had nothing to do with this spring. I'm insulted at the implication, frankly. Old, mediocre players with little upside should not be blocking prospects. How does s2nding good players down allow them to later keep the other guys, other than keeping the same guys down? How long is depth more important than quality?

 

Well, I guess that all depends on who you are comparing him to.  Compared to all Twins relievers not named Glen Perkins, yes, he was good last year.  Compared to MLB average relief pitcher ERA & K/9, yes, he was good (i.e. above average). Not great/elite (if that's what you meant to say), but good.  Hard to complain about $2.2M for a good, veteran reliever on a team of mostly bad ones, but hey, that's just me.

[John Bonnes]

Stauffer last year as a reliever - 57K in 56.1 IP, 2.56 ERA. He' no your average failed 5th starter.

 

[jokin]

 

Well, I guess that all depends on who you are comparing him to.  Compared to all Twins relievers not named Glen Perkins, yes, he was good last year.  Compared to MLB average relief pitcher ERA & K/9, yes, he was good (i.e. above average). Not great/elite (if that's what you meant to say), but good.  Hard to complain about $2.2M for a good, veteran reliever on a team of mostly bad ones, but hey, that's just me.

 

Stauffer last year as a reliever - 57K in 56.1 IP, 2.56 ERA. He' no your average failed 5th starter.

 

It all looks good on paper, but Stuaffer pitched a majority of his innings in low leverage situations, at the extreme pitcher-friendly Petco Park.

 

I hope for the best, but really, not expecting a whole lot more from Stauffer over Burton last year is probably the right stance to take.

Edited March 26, 2015 by jokin

[Mike Sixel]

Hey, I hope I'm wrong.......

[nytwinsfan]

I just don't understand why they signed Stauffer. It makes no sense to me. There are plenty of good options, including whichever of Milone/Pelfrey/May don't make the starting rotation.  And Tonkin, Z. Jones, Achter, and maybe even Burdi or Reed are right on the doorstep. What a waste of money. And I'm not just saying that because Stauffer has been poor this spring. His track record is not so impressive that I would sign him and take up spots for all of the above. It just made and continues to make zero sense.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

After four lousy seasons, the transition back to being a competitive (.500ish) club is as much psychological as physical.  As such, my guess is that the Twins are trying to find a balance between going all in for young upside (with the potential to crash & burn) and trying to put their most competitive foot forward in April/May to try to foster a "this year is going to be different" attitude.  The point is that, for them, I don't think the short-run is completely irrelevant, which is why these decisions are not easy ones.

"This year is going to be different"?

 

2015: Stauffer, Boyer, (Pelfrey?)

2014: Burton, Guerrier (after a month in AAA), Deduno/Swarzak

2013: Roenicke, Wood

2012: Capps, Gray, Maloney

2011: Dusty Hughes, Slowey

 

Hardly a group that's immune to crashing & burning (although some of them went for the slow fizzle).

 

And it's not as if I am calling for full bullpen upheaval -- our top 3 relievers are pretty much set in stone, and have been since 2013.  Stocking older mediocrity in the back end of the pen isn't really where you put your "most competitive foot forward" anyway.

[twinsajsf]

 

I just don't understand why they signed Stauffer. It makes no sense to me. There are plenty of good options, including whichever of Milone/Pelfrey/May don't make the starting rotation.  And Tonkin, Z. Jones, Achter, and maybe even Burdi or Reed are right on the doorstep. What a waste of money. And I'm not just saying that because Stauffer has been poor this spring. His track record is not so impressive that I would sign him and take up spots for all of the above. It just made and continues to make zero sense.

 

Again, it might just be this simple:  1) Twins' bullpen was bad last year, + 2) Tim Stauffer was good last year, + 3) $2.2M is chump change in MLB = Twins sign Tim Stauffer. 

 

Maybe you're just overthinking it?

[nytwinsfan]

 

Again, it might just be this simple:  1) Twins' bullpen was bad last year, + 2) Tim Stauffer was good last year, + 3) $2.2M is chump change in MLB = Twins sign Tim Stauffer. 

 

Maybe you're just overthinking it?

Fair, but (1)-(3) also overlook:  (4) Tim Stauffer hasn't been that great over the longer term for someone playing in Petco Park, (5) The Twins bullpen was bad last year because Perkins got hurt and the rest of the Twins bullpen was otherwise bad last year, whereas this year we have a lot more talent, young and veteran (Milone/Pelfrey) available and available soon, and (6) although I agree $2.2M is chump change, Terry Ryan doesn't like "chump change" going to "waste," so he will keep Stauffer pitching well beyond the point where someone else could be doing a good job to justify the $2.2M.

[twinsajsf]

 

 

"This year is going to be different"?

 

2015: Stauffer, Boyer, (Pelfrey?)

2014: Burton, Guerrier (after a month in AAA), Deduno/Swarzak

2013: Roenicke, Wood

2012: Capps, Gray, Maloney

2011: Dusty Hughes, Slowey

 

Hardly a group that's immune to crashing & burning (although some of them went for the slow fizzle).

 

And it's not as if I am calling for full bullpen upheaval -- our top 3 relievers are pretty much set in stone, and have been since 2013.  Stocking older mediocrity in the back end of the pen isn't really where you put your "most competitive foot forward" anyway.

 

Obviously, there is a lot of room for disagreement about whether the Twins should be trying to take what they consider to be the best team North with them initially or the team they think might be better a couple of months or years from now. 

 

For my part, I like that they they are trying to bring the best team North (which still may or may not include Pelfrey/Milone--we'll see), especially since it will already include a bunch of young guys still trying to establish themselves:  Santana, Vargas, Arcia, Hicks/Rosario?, Pinto/Herrman?, Graham. 

 

I'm not harboring any illusions about winning the division this year, but I'm comfortable with  the approach a bunch of young talent interspersed with solid veterans to see if we can actually get back to respectability in 2015 with Sano, Buxton, Berrios and Meyer pushing us beyond thereafter.

 

Go Twins!

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Stauffer last year as a reliever - 57K in 56.1 IP, 2.56 ERA. He' no your average failed 5th starter.

Stauffer actually intrigues me a little bit too.

 

I have no real objection to any one of these guys in isolation -- it's the potential combination of multiple low-upside vets on expiring contracts (add Duensing to that group too) that doesn't appeal to me.

 

Assuming Pelfrey/Boyer/Graham are the final 3, that's an average age in our opening day bullpen of 31.  Rule 5'er Graham would be the only one under 31 this year.  And the only one who could be freely exchanged with a AAA reliever is our best MLB RH reliever at the moment (Fien), so there is little flexibility.

 

And Graham, Fien, and Perkins would be the only ones with multiple years of control left -- the other 4 (ages 31, 32, and a pair of 33 year olds) will be FA after this season.

[twinsajsf]

 

 

Fair, but (1)-(3) also overlook:  (4) Tim Stauffer hasn't been that great over the longer term for someone playing in Petco Park, (5) The Twins bullpen was bad last year because Perkins got hurt and the rest of the Twins bullpen was otherwise bad last year, whereas this year we have a lot more talent, young and veteran (Milone/Pelfrey) available and available soon, and (6) although I agree $2.2M is chump change, Terry Ryan doesn't like "chump change" going to "waste," so he will keep Stauffer pitching well beyond the point where someone else could be doing a good job to justify the $2.2M.

 

Hmm . . . do you mean "great" or "good", and how long is "longer term", because he hs been "good" for the last three seasons (albeit in Petco Park).  I also think it would have been a stretch at the time of the Stauffer signing (or even now, for that matter) to consider Milone/Pelfrey as "a lot more (veteran) talent" than Stauffer, particularly bullpen talent, since neither has actually done that in his career. They also had no idea that they were getting Graham or that he would earn a spot in the bullpen if they did get him.  In the end, regardless of how it ultimately plays out, it seems prudent to sign a good veteran reliever for not much money as a starting point for repairing a lousy bullpen.  The worst that can happen is that a bunch of guys perform well in ST and you end up having to make a choice between at least reasonably good (veteran and/or young) options.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Obviously, there is a lot of room for disagreement about whether the Twins should be trying to take what they consider to be the best team North with them initially or the team they think might be better a couple of months or years from now. 

 

For my part, I like that they they are trying to bring the best team North (which still may or may not include Pelfrey/Milone--we'll see), especially since it will already include a bunch of young guys still trying to establish themselves:  Santana, Vargas, Arcia, Hicks/Rosario?, Pinto/Herrman?, Graham. 

Veterans =/= best team

 

You could have made this same post last spring, assuming that the Twins identified the "best team" in Kubel, Bartlett, Correia, Pelfrey, Burton, Duensing, Deduno, (Guerrier in AAA), etc., and still found room for youngsters like Arcia, Hicks, Pinto, Gibson, Escobar, etc.  With younger bullpen arms just a phone call away in Rochester!  Who barely saw any MLB action until the season was long lost in August...

 

And I'm not against veterans -- Jared Burton in 2012 was a great add even though he turned 31 that year, because he offered:

1) short-term upside (career 129 ERA+)

2) multiple years of team control

3) and he only cost $750k.

 

Even if Graham makes it, the Twins might still stock their 7 man opening day bullpen with 4 guys age 31 or older who meet virtually none of Burton's 3 criteria above (except Boyer's $750k salary if he makes the roster, and maybe Pelfrey's potential improved performance out of the pen if we'd ever actually get around to trying him there).

 

[nytwinsfan]

 

Hmm . . . do you mean "great" or "good", and how long is "longer term", because he hs been "good" for the last three seasons (albeit in Petco Park).  I also think it would have been a stretch at the time of the Stauffer signing (or even now, for that matter) to consider Milone/Pelfrey as "a lot more (veteran) talent" than Stauffer, particularly bullpen talent, since neither has actually done that in his career. They also had no idea that they were getting Graham or that he would earn a spot in the bullpen if they did get him.  In the end, regardless of how it ultimately plays out, it seems prudent to sign a good veteran reliever for not much money as a starting point for repairing a lousy bullpen.  The worst that can happen is that a bunch of guys perform well in ST and you end up having to make a choice between at least reasonably good (veteran and/or young) options.

Nope, the worst that can happen is that a bunch of guys perform well in ST (and in the minors for that matter) and you end up not playing the guys who perform well because Terry Ryan needs to justify the signing. 

[James Richter]

Even if nobody loses their spot due to terrible performance (unlikely), the Twins would be smart to plan on using at least 7 starters and 10 relievers in the first half alone - multiple injuries will happen. So, all things being equal, I'd like to see them craft a 40-man that includes at least that many spots on the depth chart. If the choice for 5th-starter creates a roster crunch that causes them to discard a player they believe is actually their #7 reliever, that means they could wind up giving innings to their #11 reliever at some point in the first half. Stashing some options guys instead could help insure that they only give innings to their best pitchers, which would help the team win this year.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Stauffer actually intrigues me a little bit too.

 

I have no real objection to any one of these guys in isolation -- it's the potential combination of multiple low-upside vets on expiring contracts (add Duensing to that group too) that doesn't appeal to me.

 

Assuming Pelfrey/Boyer/Graham are the final 3, that's an average age in our opening day bullpen of 31.  Rule 5'er Graham would be the only one under 31 this year.  And the only one who could be freely exchanged with a AAA reliever is our best MLB RH reliever at the moment (Fien), so there is little flexibility.

 

And Graham, Fien, and Perkins would be the only ones with multiple years of control left -- the other 4 (ages 31, 32, and a pair of 33 year olds) will be FA after this season.

 

Great post. It isn't the individual decisions, its the collective decisions that I take issue with. There is zero evidence young players are getting a shot in the bullpen. Meanwhile, other teams are calling up young RP earlier, so, you know, they get pitches before their arm falls off from trying to throw so hard. It's the philosophy that appears to be the issue.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Even if nobody loses their spot due to terrible performance (unlikely), the Twins would be smart to plan on using at least 7 starters and 10 relievers in the first half alone - multiple injuries will happen. So, all things being equal, I'd like to see them craft a 40-man that includes at least that many spots on the depth chart. If the choice for 5th-starter creates a roster crunch that causes them to discard a player they believe is actually their #7 reliever, that means they could wind up giving innings to their #11 reliever at some point in the first half. Stashing some options guys instead could help insure that they only give innings to their best pitchers, which would help the team win this year.

 

Except they aren't putting anyone* with options on the MLB roster. That's the point, the RP should be 2-3 guys with options, that can be sent down and brought back up, not guys all over 31. 

 

*1 guy? Maybe?

[Jham]

 

Nope, the worst that can happen is that a bunch of guys perform well in ST (and in the minors for that matter) and you end up not playing the guys who perform well because Terry Ryan needs to justify the signing. 

 

Still disagree.  I think the worse worst thing that can happen is that we formulate roster decisions that impact the future/present roster based on whoever gets hot during spring training.  Look at the guys hitting during the 6th through 9th innings when most of these relievers are getting action and tell me that you would feel comfortable projecting season-long success based on those results.  

We have been down this road before.  "We don't need Span or Revere or Alex Pressley because Hicks is having a great spring!"  
 

I remember when people were saying that Slama was going to be a future set-up man.  Imagine if we would have rolled with him instead of signing say Casey Fien.  When we signed Neshek and Breslow, it turned few heads, and even fewer when they walked.  Maybe we paid a bit for giving up on them too early and assuming we had better options on the farm.  

 

Can we please play one regular season game before we turn this season into yet another rolling audition of failed prospects eliminating whatever trade value they might have and start giving away rostered players for nothing?

 

[jimmer]

 

We have been down this road before.  "We don't need Span or Revere or Alex Pressley because Hicks is having a great spring!"  
 

 

 

 

In fairness, Span and Revere were already gone before Hicks had his very nice ST.

[Mike Sixel]

Ryan doesn't trade prospects, not sure how they can ruin their trade value. 

[Jham]

 

Ryan doesn't trade prospects, not sure how they can ruin their trade value. 

 

Maybe I should have put "prospects" in quotes, as the names I'm seeing thrown around as potential bull pen arms, other than Reed and Burdi, are maybe not so prospecty.  These guys almost always fail in the big leagues, but are occasionally used to fill in trade gaps.  But it's easier to a sell a not so prospecty guy as a prospect if you can tell your trade partner that "He'd be good in the Bigs, but we don't have room", as opposed to "We've proven conclusively that he has no big league future, because we tried him."

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Can we please play one regular season game before we turn this season into yet another rolling audition of failed prospects eliminating whatever trade value they might have and start giving away rostered players for nothing?

"Yet another"?  This hasn't happened at the MLB bullpen recently for the Twins.

 

Last year, Tonkin was the only guy to get a pen audition before August.  Meanwhile, 41% of our relief innings went to "veterans" who were gone from the organization by December, returning zero value.

[nytwinsfan]

 

Can we please play one regular season game before we turn this season into yet another rolling audition of failed prospects eliminating whatever trade value they might have and start giving away rostered players for nothing?

This literally has not happened, at least in the last few years. Hicks is the only recent high-ranking prospect that failed. Slama wouldn't be in the top 30 in the system today. Vargas, Santana, Gibson, Dozier, Arcia have all been solid or better.  May was starting to figure it out before the season ended.  Who else am I forgetting? In terms of FA, Nolasco, Pelfrey, Doumit, Marquis, Corriea, Willingham, and Morales, not to mention the countless "former-Twins" veterans, have either been mediocre (Willingham was good in 2012) or just disasters (everyone else). Only Hughes and Suzuki stick out as a FA signing that has worked out great in the last few years. Fein was a minor league FA who came up through Rochester, and thus was more akin to a prospect than Stauffer.

Edited March 26, 2015 by nytwinsfan

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Even if nobody loses their spot due to terrible performance (unlikely), the Twins would be smart to plan on using at least 7 starters and 10 relievers in the first half alone - multiple injuries will happen. So, all things being equal, I'd like to see them craft a 40-man that includes at least that many spots on the depth chart. If the choice for 5th-starter creates a roster crunch that causes them to discard a player they believe is actually their #7 reliever, that means they could wind up giving innings to their #11 reliever at some point in the first half. Stashing some options guys instead could help insure that they only give innings to their best pitchers, which would help the team win this year.

They did this last year.  Nine guys saw first half 2014 bullpen action, and the only "stashed options guy" was Tonkin, for 12.1 innings (4% of the bullpen total).

 

Did it help the team win?  Did we wind up with additional assets?  Did it answer any questions about the future?

[nytwinsfan]

 

 

Maybe I should have put "prospects" in quotes, as the names I'm seeing thrown around as potential bull pen arms, other than Reed and Burdi, are maybe not so prospecty.  These guys almost always fail in the big leagues, but are occasionally used to fill in trade gaps.  But it's easier to a sell a not so prospecty guy as a prospect if you can tell your trade partner that "He'd be good in the Bigs, but we don't have room", as opposed to "We've proven conclusively that he has no big league future, because we tried him."

I think you are underestimating Achter, Tonkin, and Z. Jones. Yes, they don't have the same closer or set-up potential as Burdi or Reed, but they are legitimate prospects, and would have been top 10-20 in our system a couple of years ago. Arguably Tonkin and Z. Jones still are.

[twinsajsf]

 

Nope, the worst that can happen is that a bunch of guys perform well in ST (and in the minors for that matter) and you end up not playing the guys who perform well because Terry Ryan needs to justify the signing. 

 

Still confused about how you are arriving at these distinctions.  Stauffer performed well (57K in 56.1 IP, 2.56 ERA) in the ML play, while Tonkin/Achter  (I assume these are the two you are anguishing over) performed similarly in MiL play.  None impressed in ST (though tonkin/Achter had smaller sample sizes and Stauffer's poor outing were the multi-inning ones when he was still competing for the 5th starters role.  So, tell me again why Tonkin and/or Achter trump Stauffer? 

 

For what it's worth, I would have had no problem with Achter, in particular, claiming the 7th spot over Pelfrey/Milone, if that's the direction they end up going.  Maybe over Boyer also, although if you can remember back that far (prior to his surprising retirment), he was a very good ML releiver also, and has been outstanding this Spring, so hard to argue either way too forcefully on that one.  But over Stauffer?  Hmm . . . no, that makes no sense.

[Mike Sixel]

Another good point above, if you keep the young guys down, how do you know what you have? At some point, you need to give them a chance, like, in a year when you are NOT A CONTENDER, like the last two years, and pretty probably this year too.

[nytwinsfan]

 

 

Still confused about how you are arriving at these distinctions.  Stauffer performed well (57K in 56.1 IP, 2.56 ERA) in the ML play, while Tonkin/Achter  (I assume these are the two you are anguishing over) performed similarly in MiL play.  None impressed in ST (though tonkin/Achter had smaller sample sizes and Stauffer's poor outing were the multi-inning ones when he was still competing for the 5th starters role.  So, tell me again why Tonkin and/or Achter trump Stauffer? 

 

For what it's worth, I would have had no problem with Achter, in particular, claiming the 7th spot over Pelfrey/Milone, if that's the direction they end up going.  Maybe over Boyer also, although if you can remember back that far (prior to his surprising retirment), he was a very good ML releiver also, and has been outstanding this Spring, so hard to argue either way too forcefully on that one.  But over Stauffer?  Hmm . . . no, that makes no sense.

Tonkin and Achter could probably use more time, true, and Reed and Burdi definitely. But 2 of 3 of Milone, Pelfrey, and/or May need spots. I just don't buy it that any of those three will not be as good as Stauffer. Maybe May, but if so, that is because he is still working some things out to reach his much higher upside. Thielber may not make the pen and he has a noticeably better career FIP than Stauffer, playing in a more hitter friendly park. He's also a lefty. If Ryan really meant what he said about playing the best people, and thus was willing to bench Stauffer, I'd have no trouble with the signing. But that's BS, as we saw last year with Nolasco.