Article: What's Left On The Market?

[nicksaviking]

I have a hard time seeing how TR is not just biding his time until the AA power arms are ready to prove themselves

Fine by me, except for the biding. They're hard throwing relievers, they need no biding and minimal seasoning. There are a half dozen options which means there isn't room for them all at once, cycle through them and see who sticks.

 

A relief pitcher who is a refined and finished product is called a starter.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Being bullish about our relief prospects isn't mutually exclusive from wanting another arm -- it's just being practical, offering some insurance for those guys not to be ready on opening day (and for likely needing replacements for Jepsen and Fien in 2017).

 

Additionally, I know the FA reliever idea often gets shot down with the justification that reliever performance is too volatile.  Well, wouldn't that volatility also apply to whatever internal options we develop?  Obviously they cost less than a FA, but if your goal is to build a good bullpen it should still be a concern.  The Twins could be very fortunate and produce 2-3 strong relievers internally over the next 2 years, but not every one of those guys is going to be healthy and producing at a high level every season, and even when they do, by that point they may simply be offsetting the loss of Jepsen, Perkins, or May.  Counting on just a couple guys at the top, while filling the rest of the staff with guys like Boyer, Abad, etc. is how you wind up with desperate situations like 2015 when one of those top guys is injured or ineffective (or is needed in the rotation, like May) -- you may even have some sleeper success with a fill in guy like Boyer but when you are loath to trust him, it doesn't help all that much at the top.

 

If you want to contend and field a good bullpen, you should really aim to have 4-5 guys you trust around the top of that pen, because not all of them with be healthy and performing at all times.  For all their potential, none of our prospects are at that point yet.  The Twins have Perkins, Jepsen, and May -- that's a start, but a good lefty like Bastardo and perhaps one more righty (like Mark Lowe would have been) would have put us in a really good position entering 2016.

[deanlambrecht]

 

If Span is really willing to take a 1 year deal . . .

 

Too late unfortunately.  He got 3/$31M with a mutual 4th year option from the Giants.  http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/01/giants-nearing-deal-with-denard-span.html

 

I would have liked to have him back, even on a two year deal (or three under the right terms).  Nice guy, solid player, can teach the kids, and if we don't need him, and excellent trade chip.  Best of luck to him in SF - he can't be disappointed about that!

[howieramone2]

 

Being bullish about our relief prospects isn't mutually exclusive from wanting another arm -- it's just being practical, offering some insurance for those guys not to be ready on opening day (and for likely needing replacements for Jepsen and Fien in 2017).

 

Additionally, I know the FA reliever idea often gets shot down with the justification that reliever performance is too volatile.  Well, wouldn't that volatility also apply to whatever internal options we develop?  Obviously they cost less than a FA, but if your goal is to build a good bullpen it should still be a concern.  The Twins could be very fortunate and produce 2-3 strong relievers internally over the next 2 years, but not every one of those guys is going to be healthy and producing at a high level every season, and even when they do, by that point they may simply be offsetting the loss of Jepsen, Perkins, or May.  Counting on just a couple guys at the top, while filling the rest of the staff with guys like Boyer, Abad, etc. is how you wind up with desperate situations like 2015 when one of those top guys is injured or ineffective (or is needed in the rotation, like May) -- you may even have some sleeper success with a fill in guy like Boyer but when you are loath to trust him, it doesn't help all that much at the top.

 

If you want to contend and field a good bullpen, you should really aim to have 4-5 guys you trust around the top of that pen, because not all of them with be healthy and performing at all times.  For all their potential, none of our prospects are at that point yet.  The Twins have Perkins, Jepsen, and May -- that's a start, but a good lefty like Bastardo and perhaps one more righty (like Mark Lowe would have been) would have put us in a really good position entering 2016.

Pressly, Meyer, and Graham are very close. I can see getting a lefty on a short term deal. If the board wants to see shiny new things, power arms in the pen is the strength of our farm system.

Edited January 8, 2016 by howieramone2

[TheLeviathan]

 

the good years are the only ones that count :-)  '94-'00 were the short-time rebuilding years :-)

 

Right, I definitely should have included 94-00 for "years the bullpen cost a world series".

 

I'd suggest the problems were pretty much everything from those years, so I'm not sure why they matter for the absurd point he was making.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Other than that 4 and 1, I see mediocrity and horribleness.

Last time I checked, Ryan has been the GM since 1994 and a bit longer than 2002-2008...

 

Um, anythign above 15 is definitionally "above average".  So you can see what you want, but you're wrong and your point was still absurd.

 

Unless you think the 1996 Twins' World Series chances were doomed by the bullpen, in which case your opinion may not be sufficiently described as absurd.

[tobi0040]

 

Pressly, Meyer, and Graham are very close. I can see getting a lefty on a short term deal. If the board wants to see shiny new things, power arms in the pen is the strength of our farm system.

 

Graham and Meyer are a bit of a stretch. 

 

Graham had a 4.95 ERA and had he not been a Rule 5 guy would have never thrown a pitch up here last year. 

 

Meyer is new to the pen and had no idea where he was throwing the ball last year.

Edited January 8, 2016 by tobi0040

[jimmer]

Until recently, only 8 teams made the playoffs. Now only 10 teams do. So, I'd think during the times only 8 teams made the playoffs, being out of the top 8 in defense, in offense, or pitching (starting or relief),  isn't really that good whether it was technically above average or not.  Same with now not being out of the top 10.  When half the teams make the playoffs, we can be somewhat happy with being 14th...

Edited January 8, 2016 by jimmer

[TheLeviathan]

So you have to be in the top 8 of everything or you're bad at it?  

 

That's preposterous, but putting that aside - take some of the context of the point being argued here in your reply:

 

It was stated Ryan is bad at constructing bullpens and it cost us winning world series.  I'd say finishing in the "above average" category pretty much every year shoots down that assertion.

 

No one is stating he is god's gift to bullpens, but it hasn't been much of an issue.  He's been pretty good at constructing bullpens and the numbers back that up.  It certainly hasn't been our World Series achilles heel as suggested.

Edited January 9, 2016 by TheLeviathan

[jimmer]

'So you have to be in the top 8 of everything or you're bad at it? That's preposterous...'

 

While I understand another poster said most of those rankings are bad, my post that mentioned top 8 and top 10 didn't say that, unless saying it's not really that good automatically means it's bad.  I'm not, however, going to pat a bullpen or whatever on the back for being slightly above average. Teams should strive for more and fans should expect more.

 

 

Edited January 9, 2016 by jimmer

[jimmer]

Are we happy with our options in the bullpen right now? For those of you who believe we have arrived in the truly competitive zone, are you really happy with the options available to use coming out of the pen?

Edited January 9, 2016 by jimmer

[old nurse]

The Twins are a competitive team as they stand. Unless injury and severe regression hit no one would mistake them for Cincinnati, the Philies or the Fresno Grizzlies. Unless there is some serious progression, ALCS tickets are something another team is going to print.  They have a lot of above average players. Unless Sano or Buxton steps up, they have no studs. The progression of the non arbitration eligible players this year will be the key for the success. One or two holes are easier to fill at the trade deadline than the team of question marks.

[TheLeviathan]

'So you have to be in the top 8 of everything or you're bad at it? That's preposterous...'

 

While I understand another poster said most of those rankings are bad, my post that mentioned top 8 and top 10 didn't say that, unless saying it's not really that good automatically means it's bad.  I'm not, however, going to pat a bullpen or whatever on the back for being slightly above average. Teams should strive for more and fans should expect more.

Your post took the context of that discussion and seemed to utterly ignore it to twist the point being made.

 

You can always strive for more but no team is great at everything. The Royals won a World Series with a group of starters that ranked 22nd in the league in ERA. You could go back to any winner and find elements of their team that were less than great to a downright liability.

 

Expecting everything to be top 8 great is unrealistic. What you have to strive for is as many strengths as possible with as few liabilities as you can. So, yes, the team should've been looking for more than Abad and should still be looking. But Ryan has generally been pretty good at constructing bullpens for his team.

[USAFChief]

Your post took the context of that discussion and seemed to utterly ignore it to twist the point being made.

You can always strive for more but no team is great at everything. The Royals won a World Series with a group of starters that ranked 22nd in the league in ERA. You could go back to any winner and find elements of their team that were less than great to a downright liability.

Expecting everything to be top 8 great is unrealistic. What you have to strive for is as many strengths as possible with as few liabilities as you can. So, yes, the team should've been looking for more than Abad and should still be looking. But Ryan has generally been pretty good at constructing bullpens for his team.

Nit pic, but everyone's points would be easier to follow if they were to specify "AL," "NL," or "MLB" when citing where a team stands.

 

For example, "22nd in the league" can be inferred to be "22nd in MLB" because the Royals are not in a league with 22 teams.

 

But your point would be clearer if you said MLB. And it would be much, much clearer if, when referring to the Twins, "8th" was specified as in the AL, or in MLB.

 

Not to mention, Those are not interchangeable terms or comparisons, particularly in the case of pitching, where in the NL even relief pitchers sometimes get to face opposing pitchers.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Nit pic, but everyone's points would be easier to follow if they were to specify "AL," "NL," or "MLB" when citing where a team stands.

For example, "22nd in the league" can be inferred to be "22nd in MLB" because the Royals are not in a league with 22 teams.

But your point would be clearer if you said MLB. And it would be much, much clearer if, when referring to the Twins, "8th" was specified as in the AL, or in MLB.

Not to mention, Those are not interchangeable terms or comparisons, particularly in the case of pitching, where in the NL even relief pitchers sometimes get to face opposing pitchers.

 

Way I've always seen it is, unless otherwise specified as "AL or NL" - it's an MLB total ranking.  If that's different for you, ok, but it was pretty easy to infer.

[JonLewisFord]

How about taking a chance on Greg Holland  RP (former KC)?  After recently undergoing  TJ surgery, he offers nothing for 2016.  However a multi year incentive based contract could yield some BP help in 2017 and beyond.  30 yrs old and has had some very impressive seasons pre TJ. 

[USAFChief]

As for the Twins bullpen not costing them in the postseason, these are certainly not the end all, be all numbers but they are at the least interesting (postseason series lost by the Twins under Ryan):

 

2002, ALCS: Twins bullpen gave up 16 ER, took 2 L's

LAA pen, 2 ER, got 1 W

 

2003 ALDS: Twins pen 4ER, NYY 0.

 

2004 ALDS: Twins pen 9 ER, 2 L's, NYY 6 ER, 2 W's

 

2006 ALDS: Twins pen 4 ER 1 L, Oak 2ER, 1W

 

2009 ALDS: Twins pen 6 ER 1L, NYY 2 ER

 

2010 ALDS Twins pen 4 ER 1 L, NYY 1

 

IMO, Some of that is noise. Some of that is, the Twins pen was not up to the task of post season baseball. I think that's because the Twins, under Ryan, have tended to follow the "bullpens aren't important and can be assembled on the cheap" model.

[TheLeviathan]

 

As for the Twins bullpen not costing them in the postseason, these are certainly not the end all, be all numbers but they are at the least interesting (postseason series lost by the Twins under Ryan):

2002, ALCS: Twins bullpen gave up 16 ER, took 2 L's
LAA pen, 2 ER, got 1 W

2003 ALDS: Twins pen 4ER, NYY 0.

2004 ALDS: Twins pen 9 ER, 2 L's, NYY 6 ER, 2 W's

2006 ALDS: Twins pen 4 ER 1 L, Oak 2ER, 1W

2009 ALDS: Twins pen 6 ER 1L, NYY 2 ER

2010 ALDS Twins pen 4 ER 1 L, NYY 1

IMO, Some of that is noise. Some of that is, the Twins pen was not up to the task of post season baseball. I think that's because the Twins, under Ryan, have tended to follow the "bullpens aren't important and can be assembled on the cheap" model.

 

More than some of it is noise, most of it is.  Many of those runs and losses came from guys that would not fit the "build the bullpen on the cheap" criticism.  Unless somehow Nathan, Rincon, Jesse Crain, or mop-up starters giving up runs count as part of it.

[gunnarthor]

 

Are we happy with our options in the bullpen right now? For those of you who believe we have arrived in the truly competitive zone, are you really happy with the options available to use coming out of the pen?

If healthy, I think they are ok.  The backend of Perkins, Jepsen and May are pretty  good.  I doubt they blow that many leads, which is the important part.  I like Pressly more than most and I love Burdi, who I think ends up as a major piece in the end.  I think the pen is better than Chicago, Detroit or Cleveland.

 

Sure, I'd love to add Clippard or another arm but the main issue is getting more IP from the starters. 

[jimmer]

One also has to wonder how good the stat ERA is when talking about relief pitchers (or any pitchers, really). In the case of relievers, all the inherited runs allowed don't count on their ERA stat line.

 

If one insists it's the stat to use then our relief staff in the last 4 years ranked 17th in 2012, 14th in 2013 and then 21st in 2014 and 2015.  Getting worse not better as we supposedly passed the threshold into the competititve years.

 

Ours ranked 21st last year and what has really been done to improve it?

Edited January 9, 2016 by jimmer

[TheLeviathan]

 

One also has to wonder how good the stat ERA is when talking about relief pitchers (or any pitchers, really). In the case of relievers, all the inherited runs allowed don't count on their ERA stat line.

 

From 2003-2010 the Twins had the 5th best xFIP in all of baseball.  2nd best in FIP.  8th best in WAR.  

So you go ahead and pick the stat, tell me which one is the make or break and I'm almost guaranteeing you it will still suggest the Twins had some pretty damn good bullpens.

 

[jimmer]

 

From 2003-2010 the Twins had the 5th best xFIP in all of baseball.  2nd best in FIP.  8th best in WAR.  

So you go ahead and pick the stat, tell me which one is the make or break and I'm almost guaranteeing you it will still suggest the Twins had some pretty damn good bullpens.

does xFIP take into account inherited runs scored?

Edited January 9, 2016 by jimmer

[TheLeviathan]

 

does xFIP take into account inherited runs scored?

 

Made a small error in my sorting, they were 4th best in FIP, 6th in xFIP.  As for inherited runners, from 2003-2010 the team lead all of baseball in RE24, which fangraphs like to think is the best model for measuring this sort of thing.  Or one of the best.  

 

So yeah, every measure.  Sorry the facts don't fit the narrative.

[jimmer]

That is excellent information (though 3 of those years weren't under Ryan). Ever since he's returned, their relief corp is 11th in MLB from 2012-2015 (though 9th out of 15 in AL).

 

Also of note, the relief corp was above league average in % of inherited runners scored in most of the years between 2002-2007 as well (usually just barely, but still above league average), and below average every year since he returned.

Edited January 9, 2016 by jimmer

[TheLeviathan]

I'll be more critical of his bullpen management going forward as we mount up a contending effort for sure.  I'm not sure I put a lot of stock in the last few years any more than I put stock into the Stahoviak days.  

 

This offseason has been a disappointment as far as the bullpen goes, I'm hoping the results don't reflect the effort.  Historically speaking, however, his results have been quite good.

[jimmer]

 

I'll be more critical of his bullpen management going forward as we mount up a contending effort for sure.  I'm not sure I put a lot of stock in the last few years any more than I put stock into the Stahoviak days.  

 

This offseason has been a disappointment as far as the bullpen goes, I'm hoping the results don't reflect the effort.  Historically speaking, however, his results have been quite good.

So when discussing his ability to create a bullpen, you only want to take into account years we were competitive?  Not from the start of his GM time to 2001 (per earlier post), not the years since he returned (per this post).  Only 2002-2010 (which includes three years he wasn't GM)?  Got it. Including those small time frames ('94-00 and '11-'15) would be absurd.  

 

Some thought last year was the start of a contending effort since we were still in the hunt going into the final week. Considering the Twins were 21st (9th in the AL) in RE24 (actually sporting a negative RE24), and 9th out of 15 AL teams in percentage of inherited runs allowed, would a better bullpen have made the difference between making the playoffs and not? Something for some of us to consider.

Edited January 10, 2016 by jimmer

[TheLeviathan]

 

So when discussing his ability to create a bullpen, you only want to take into account years we were competitive? 

 

Since 1994 the team is 4th in RE24, so let's just stop.  Are you so convinced of your narrative that facts be damned?

 

Look, the truth is that over the large majority of Ryan's time the team has had a pretty good bullpen.  

 

Yeah, they could have and should have done more last year.  I have no problems criticizing Ryan when it's fair.  The fact that you continue to pound a point that is demonstrably false or overstated may show you don't have much interest in the fairness part.  Otherwise you'd accept the facts and move on.

[jimmer]

 

Since 1994 the team is 4th in RE24, so let's just stop.  Are you so convinced of your narrative that facts be damned?

 

Look, the truth is that over the large majority of Ryan's time the team has had a pretty good bullpen.  

 

Yeah, they could have and should have done more last year.  I have no problems criticizing Ryan when it's fair.  The fact that you continue to pound a point that is demonstrably false or overstated may show you don't have much interest in the fairness part.  Otherwise you'd accept the facts and move on.

No, not 4th in '94.  Last in the AL in RE24 in '94.  Dead last.  Stop indeed.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=rel&lg=al&qual=0&type=3&season=1994&month=0&season1=1994&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=5,d

 

From '94-'01 they were 12th out of 15 in RE24.  Then 9th out of 15 AL teams since he's returned.  How does that look? Pretty bad-Slightly below average for sure.  If that's pretty good, okay.

 

But to the whole sticking to the narrative comment, I'm pretty sure I pointed out how good of info you gave when pointing out RE24, did I not? AND then I used more info to back up your point of view when talking about the years you want to count as I stated the inherited runs allowed percentage, did I not?  Doesn't sound like something someone would do if he was stuck in his point of view and was continuing to push his narrative does it? But whatever..

 

Then, I pointed out how bad it's been since he's been back, which you also want to discount as you wanted to discount the years prior to the competitive years (your idea not mine).

 

I care about the truth and I care about listening to other people' points of view. That's why I pointed out how good your info was in regards to the years you want to take into account AND added more info that strengthened your point (the Inherited runs allowed percentage).  Pointing that out didn't help my narrative did it?

Edited January 10, 2016 by jimmer

[TheLeviathan]

I don't really have an opinion apart from the facts show that the team has had a pretty good bullpen.  So I conclude they've had a pretty good bullpen.  

 

If you choose to look away from those facts, that's fine.  That's your call.  The contention that Ryan is bad at fielding a bullpen is demonstrably false.  So, yeah, I guess I just side with the demonstrably true part.  You take whatever stance you want.

 

The stance, by the way, that they've been historically pretty good at it does not entail that they always make the right decisions or are currently making the right decisions, but if you're going to side with the meme that the team hasn't been very good at it and this is a continuation of that failure - know that it's a demonstrably false meme.  

 

And the best part?  You can accept that Ryan has been pretty good and still falling short recently.  The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Edited January 10, 2016 by TheLeviathan

[jimmer]

You're right. The 'facts' say that the relief corp being 12th in the AL out of 15 team in RE24 from '94-'01 and 9th out of 15 AL teams in RE24 from '12-'15 was 'pretty good' as opposed to a pretty bad- slightly below average.

 

Those time frames account for 12 of his 18 years as GM. (or the mostly bad years/non-playoff years with him as GM).   The time frame that shows his bullpens were excellent was 2002-2007 (or the mostly playoff years).  It's easy to understand why one wouldn't want to take into account any time frame but '02-'07 when talking up Ryan's bullpen construction.

 

And I am the one stuck on a narrative unwilling to concede points.

Edited January 10, 2016 by jimmer