Article: Twins Sign Closer Rodney To One-Year Deal

[ashbury]

And do you have an analysis that even backs this up? There have certainly been great teams that had great bullpens but I haven't seen an analysis that said it was the best translation of W-L outcomes or the more realistic way to be competitive.

I just took a look at the last 4 WS winners. Either by Wins Above Replacement, or Win Probability Added, two measures that are constructed pretty differently from one another, the Royals stand out as winning because of their bullpen, and the Giants, Cubs and Astros do not.

 

You can win a World Series by bludgeoning the other team with your bats, or by shutting them down with your starters, or by shortening the game via your bullpen. I like baseball.

[Riverbrian]

 

I just took a look at the last 4 WS winners. Either by Wins Above Replacement, or Win Probability Added, two measures that are constructed pretty differently from one another, the Royals stand out as winning because of their bullpen, and the Giants, Cubs and Astros do not.

 

You can win a World Series by bludgeoning the other team with your bats, or by shutting them down with your starters, or by shortening the game via your bullpen. I like baseball.

 

I agree that Cubs didn't have the best bullpen in 2016. However... I shudder to think what would have happened if they didn't give up Glayber Torres to improve it. I also contend that the Indians had a fantastic bullpen and they almost won it all because of Miller, Allen, Shaw. Otero and McCallister. Kluber was great. The other two guys they had starting were Tomlin and Bauer. 

 

When building a roster... you want to turn on all the spigots. FA, IFA, Trade, Draft and Develop, Rule 5. You don't want to ignore or turn off any of the spigots. 

 

Same thing when it comes to: The ways you win a ball game.

 

You want to crush them with your bats. You want your starters to hang zero's  and you want to suck the life out of them by giving them very little hope of coming back against a killer bullpen. 

 

When they get down because you built a lead after crushing them with your bats and your starter hung some zeros. It is sure nice to have a bullpen full of arms to choose from. It is also nice to have them when you don't crush them with your bats and your starter doesn't hang some zero's.   

 

P.S. The Dodgers and Astros bullpen may have under performed a little in the W.S. but there was clear effort taken by the GM's to stack them up and the Astros were one of the teams that just spent 7 Million Plus AAV for two years to get Joe Smith.

 

Also the Giants bullpen in 2014 was nothing to sneeze at. It was loaded. 

 

There is simply no excuse for any contending team to Craig Breslow the bullpen together any more. Bullpens may be fungible but they need to be fungible at a higher level. 

[USAFChief]

And your alternative is?

Spending big on 30+ yr old RP's?

Trading really good prospects to the Reds for Raisel Iglesias?

I think everyone would like to have an elite bullpen but buying it with prospects or money is not a good solution.

And YOUR alternative?

 

If you don’t have it, and won’t buy it with money or prospects, then you are without an elite bullpen.

 

And I believe today as I have for years and years now...the bullpen is incredibly important.

[Mike Sixel]

Why do people keep saying three years on relief pitcher deals? Haven't nearly all the deals been one or two years?

 

How are we to trust the front office to be great pitching evaluators, if we don't think they are smart enough to find a relief pitcher to sign for more than one year?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

How are we to trust the front office to be great pitching evaluators, if we don't think they are smart enough to find a relief pitcher to sign for more than one year?

Or maybe they're smart enough to not sign anyone for more than one year. I'm not really sure why you think longer contracts to relievers are a good idea. Now, I get the underwhelming response to Rodney's talent level (but still, he's a significant step up from most/all the relievers signed by Ryan) but the length of contract isn't a negative, it's a positive.

 

It's also possible they just signed one guy and we have no idea what they plan to do in January.

 

Almost any time you can sign a pitcher to a shorter deal, you do it. Would you rather have Darvish on a one year deal or a four year deal? I'd take the one year deal. Hell, I'd probably take Darvish for one year over three years.

[Riverbrian]

 

Or maybe they're smart enough to not sign anyone for more than one year. I'm not really sure why you think longer contracts to relievers are a good idea. Now, I get the underwhelming response to Rodney's talent level (but still, he's a significant step up from most/all the relievers signed by Ryan) but the length of contract isn't a negative, it's a positive.

 

It's also possible they just signed one guy and we have no idea what they plan to do in January.

 

Almost any time you can sign a pitcher to a shorter deal, you do it. Would you rather have Darvish on a one year deal or a four year deal? I'd take the one year deal. Hell, I'd probably take Darvish for one year over three years.

 

One year deals are always preferred. 

 

However... it does appear that one year deals won't get the deal done anymore for decent bullpen. 

[drjim]

Why do people keep saying three years on relief pitcher deals? Haven't nearly all the deals been one or two years?

 

How are we to trust the front office to be great pitching evaluators, if we don't think they are smart enough to find a relief pitcher to sign for more than one year?

Rodney is the only one for one year. All the rest are 2 years or Rockies. But none of the big guns have signed yet.

 

Maybe the Twins can wait it out. I think a decent reliever or two might drop to 1 year.

[kab21]

 

And YOUR alternative?

If you don’t have it, and won’t buy it with money or prospects, then you are without an elite bullpen.

And I believe today as I have for years and years now...the bullpen is incredibly important.

My alternative is to spend money and prospects for rotation upgrades that pitch 180+ innings every year and find competent to good RP's (Rodney included) to give the bullpen depth. Elite bullpen is nice but unnecessary. A deep bullpen however is VERY necessary.

I answered your question. You are up.

[h2oface]

 

Or maybe they're smart enough to not sign anyone for more than one year. I'm not really sure why you think longer contracts to relievers are a good idea. Now, I get the underwhelming response to Rodney's talent level (but still, he's a significant step up from most/all the relievers signed by Ryan) but the length of contract isn't a negative, it's a positive.

 

It's also possible they just signed one guy and we have no idea what they plan to do in January.

 

Almost any time you can sign a pitcher to a shorter deal, you do it. Would you rather have Darvish on a one year deal or a four year deal? I'd take the one year deal. Hell, I'd probably take Darvish for one year over three years.

 

Would you rather have Morrow for 3 years (last year and two more), or just one year, as the Dodgers had by only signing him to one year? Sure, very different case, especially where Morrow's career was. But they are all special cases. The FO that makes the right moves in advance, and not retrospect, and uses their intel and luck, become winners. One year contracts can be the best in a certain situation (Thankfully, a 41 year old season for Rodney will be a one year). 2-3 year in others.

 

Every case is different, and if you make the right moves, 2 or 3 year contracts can be the very best for a relief corp. With the Dodgers uncertainty, they gave Morrow a one-year flyer, with no club option, he became a monster out of the pen, and he took it and ran. Good for him. Could have been better for the Dodgers. Sure, hindsight. But what makes a great FO is preparing for this with foresight. 

 

Edited December 18, 2017 by h2oface

[h2oface]

 

I agree that Cubs didn't have the best bullpen in 2016. However... I shudder to think what would have happened if they didn't give up Glayber Torres to improve it. I also contend that the Indians had a fantastic bullpen and they almost won it all because of Miller, Allen, Shaw. Otero and McCallister. Kluber was great. The other two guys they had starting were Tomlin and Bauer. 

 

When building a roster... you want to turn on all the spigots. FA, IFA, Trade, Draft and Develop, Rule 5. You don't want to ignore or turn off any of the spigots. 

 

Same thing when it comes to: The ways you win a ball game.

 

You want to crush them with your bats. You want your starters to hang zero's  and you want to suck the life out of them by giving them very little hope of coming back against a killer bullpen. 

 

When they get down because you built a lead after crushing them with your bats and your starter hung some zeros. It is sure nice to have a bullpen full of arms to choose from. It is also nice to have them when you don't crush them with your bats and your starter doesn't hang some zero's.   

 

P.S. The Dodgers and Astros bullpen may have under performed a little in the W.S. but there was clear effort taken by the GM's to stack them up and the Astros were one of the teams that just spent 7 Million Plus AAV for two years to get Joe Smith.

 

Also the Giants bullpen in 2014 was nothing to sneeze at. It was loaded. 

 

There is simply no excuse for any contending team to Craig Breslow the bullpen together any more. Bullpens may be fungible but they need to be fungible at a higher level. 

 

 

Great post. Let me amend my previous statement of championship teams to the elite teams - the elite teams will include a great bullpen, a deep bullpen, and pay for it. They may come a couple strikes short in game 7 of the World Series, like Cleveland, and not win the championship, but it is the future. Especially with starters being so limited on pitches they are allowed to throw.

Edited December 18, 2017 by h2oface

[kab21]

 

Would you rather have Morrow for 3 years (last year and two more), or just one year, as the Dodgers had by only signing him to one year? Sure, very different case, especially where Morrow's career was. But they are all special cases. The FO that makes the right moves in advance, and not retrospect, and uses their intel and luck, become winners. One year contracts can be the best in a certain situation (Thankfully, a 41 year old season for Rodney will be a one year). 2-3 year in others.

 

Every case is different, and if you make the right moves, 2 or 3 year contracts can be the very best for a relief corp. With the Dodgers uncertainty, they gave Morrow a one-year flyer, with no club option, he became a monster out of the pen, and he took it and ran. Good for him. Could have been better for the Dodgers. Sure, hindsight. But what makes a great FO is preparing for this with foresight. 

This is a singular example. The more comprehensive lists (listed in this thread) show the risk in signing RP's to multiyear contracts. You can't just use one example of where it would have been better to sign a longer contract to justify signing an unrelated RP to a longer contract.

 

Great post. Let me amend my previous statement of championship teams to the elite teams - the elite teams will include a great bullpen, a deep bullpen, and pay for it. They may come a couple strikes short in game 7 of the World Series, like Cleveland, and not win the championship, but it is the future. Especially with starters being so limited on pitches they are allowed to throw.

Do you have a link to any analysis that shows a greater correlation of an elite bullpen to winning vs starting pitching/defense/hitting/etc?

[h2oface]

 

This is a singular example. The more comprehensive lists (listed in this thread) show the risk in signing RP's to multiyear contracts. You can't just use one example of where it would have been better to sign a longer contract to justify signing an unrelated RP to a longer contract.

 

Do you have a link to any analysis that shows a greater correlation of an elite bullpen to winning vs starting pitching/defense/hitting/etc?

 

I already said that every case is different, and all are special cases, and acknowledged that this was a unique example. I am not trying to win an argument with you. There are plenty here that might enjoy that engagement. I don't. I am not really into the deep stat linkage, but often enjoy other's offerings that are, and I refer you back to riverbrain's comment that I replied to and you quoted for a great summary, in my opinion. I move more organically. Ignore me if you like. No problem.

Edited December 18, 2017 by h2oface

[kab21]

 

I already said that every case is different, and all are special cases, and acknowledged that this was a unique example. I am not trying to win an argument with you. There are plenty here that might enjoy that engagement. I don't. I am not really into the deep stat linkage, but often enjoy other's offerings that are, and I refer you back to riverbrain's comment that I replied to and you quoted for a great summary, in my opinion. I move more organically. Ignore me if you like. No problem.

This isn't an argument and you are not the only one that is making the case that a winning team must (multiple dominate bullpen arms are the best translation of W-L outcomes).

Numerous people are claiming that an elite bullpen is necessary but nobody is supporting this argument with any real analysis. Perhaps some anecdotal evidence on both sides but that doesn't say much. The thing is that most very good to great teams have a lot of good to great players all over the roster. Odds are that some of the teams will have a few in the bullpen also.

 

I stand by my plan to spend money/prospects for the rotation and spend wisely (cheap if necessary) in the bullpen.

[jmlease1]

 

I don't know why anyone would take issue with Rodney being closer. They clearly signed him specifically for his experience in the role. It's where he is best suited, because his walks don't hurt as much when he always enters with a clean slate, and his strikeouts can help him get out of self-manufactured trouble. 

 

Agreed. Plus, we're not overspending on a guy to simply pitch the 9th inning. Kenley Jansen is a great, great reliever...but is he really worth paying $21M for? for less than 70 innings?

 

Two years ago Zach Britton was the shutdown guy in the AL; last year he got a $5M raise (to $11M) and was less valuable than Rodney was. (at roughly 4x the price)

 

Rodney has generally been pretty effective as a closer, a role that is generally overrated and overpaid by modern usage. So signing him at a pretty reasonable price to fill a role on this team that he should be able to perform while not blocking any of the power relief arms we have coming up in the minors or preventing what may be better options in the system already from serving in higher leverage situations seems like a decent move. It's certainly not one worth hating on.

[Riverbrian]

 

There isn't a more un reliable career path than that of a reliever. It is folly to use 2017 stats to project 2018-2020. Go back two years and look at the relievers that received multi-year contracts. 

 

John Axford
Steve Cishek
Jason Motte
Tyler Clippard
Antonio Bastardo
Mark Lowe
Tony Barnette
Chad Qualls
Jonathan Broxton
Oliver Perez
Shawn Kelley
Tony Sipp
Ryan Madson
Joakim Soria
Darren O'Day

 

If Rodney doesn't pitch well, it is easy to cut ties. It is much harder to cut ties when multiple years are committed.

 

David Price

Jason Heyward

Chris Davis

Justin Upton

Jordan Zimmerman

Jeff Samardzia

Wei-Yin Chen

Mike Leake

Alex Gordon

Ian Kennedy

Ben Zobrist

Scott Kazmir

John Lackey

Denard Span

Yiesel Sierra

 

Just listing another 15 from 2015 to provide food for thought.

 

Maybe Multi Year Contracts are just plain risky all around. However... Multi Year Contracts are the cost of doing business. 

 

[Riverbrian]

 

This isn't an argument and you are not the only one that is making the case that a winning team must (multiple dominate bullpen arms are the best translation of W-L outcomes).

Numerous people are claiming that an elite bullpen is necessary but nobody is supporting this argument with any real analysis. Perhaps some anecdotal evidence on both sides but that doesn't say much. The thing is that most very good to great teams have a lot of good to great players all over the roster. Odds are that some of the teams will have a few in the bullpen also.

 

I stand by my plan to spend money/prospects for the rotation and spend wisely (cheap if necessary) in the bullpen.

 

You keep asking us bullpen supporters to show a correlation between bullpens and winning. 

 

That's going to stop us all dead in our tracks unless someone pours through the necessary research or finds someone who knows what they are doing and pours through the necessary research and publishes it for us to regurgitate. 

 

I think it's fair to return the request back at you. Please show some correlation that a bullpen doesn't produce winners.  

 

The best bullpen argument I can make is this:

 

Jake McGee RP 31 Rockies 3 years $27,000,000
Bryan Shaw RP 30  Rockies 3 years $27,000,000
Brandon Morrow RP 33 Dodgers 2 years $21,000,000
Tommy Hunter RP 31 Phillies 2 years $18,000,000
Pat Neshek RP 37 Signed Phillies 2 years $16,250,000
Joe Smith RP 33 Signed Astros 2 years $15,000,000
Anthony Swarzak RP 32 Mets 2 years $14,000,000
Steve Cishek RP 31 Signed Cubs 2 years $13,000,000
Luke Gregerson RP 33 Signed Cardinals 2 years $11,000,000
Brandon Kintzler RP 33 Agreed Nationals 2 years $10,000,000
Yusmeiro Petit RP 33 Signed Athletics 2 years $10,000,000
Hector Rondon RP 29 Signed Astros 2 years $8,500,000

 

The Rockies, Dodgers, Phillies, Astro's, Mets, Cubs, Cards, Nats and A's are disagreeing with you by the contracts they are offering. 

 

Those front offices might be going through that research that you want H2O to provide you. Then again... they might not. 

 

I totally respect your position when you state that you would spend money/resources making starting pitching a priority. I don't disagree with that. However... The KC Rotation in 2014 or 2015 wasn't lights out. The Indians rotation was decimated in 2016. The Bullpens got them there. 

 

 

I just don't think you can elect to spend less in the bullpen on purpose anymore.

 

I also agree that the 9th inning is way overrated... I don't care if Rodney is in the 9th... I want additional guys who can get a big strike out in the 7th... Protect a lead in the 6th. Stop a bad 1st inning with a great 2nd and 3rd inning. I want a bullpen full of these guys.

 

I admit I can't predict who those guys will be but I do expect the front office to try in this day and age.

 

At least... I expect the front office to try... until someone can prove that Kansas City and Cleveland bullpens didn't overcome a weak rotation and help them immensely. 

 

 

[ashbury]

You keep asking us bullpen supporters to show a correlation between bullpens and winning.

I'm not sure who's asking what anymore. But yesterday when I weighed in on looking at recent WS winners, I was responding to a specific claim: "multiple dominant bullpen arms as the best translation to successful W-L outcomes."

 

This comes across as trying to position the bullpen as the single most important component to winning. It seemed like something a few examples should confirm or deny.

 

I often start getting skeptical as soon as I see "as we all know".

 

I'm hardly the only one posting, but by no means do I think a bullpen isn't important. Is anyone taking that position?

[Riverbrian]

 

I'm not sure who's asking what anymore. But yesterday when I weighed in on looking at recent WS winners, I was responding to a specific claim: "multiple dominant bullpen arms as the best translation to successful W-L outcomes."

 

This comes across as trying to position the bullpen as the single most important component to winning. It seemed like something a few examples should confirm or deny.

 

I often start getting skeptical as soon as I see "as we all know".

 

I'm hardly the only one posting, but by no means do I think a bullpen isn't important. Is anyone taking that position?

 

Kab repeatedly asked for some sort of tangible proof of a correlation and that's why I asked him to do the same thing to support his side and that was the context for the quote you highlighted. 

 

My contention is that you will not find that proof either way because this is such a new thing.

 

Kab has my respect... I think he's very knowledgeable but he was a little heavy handed asking for proof without proving his opinion. (Which I respect without proof because I'm sure he came by it honestly).   

 

I'm not contending that a bullpen is the single most important thing. It may come across that way because I'm strongly advocating the need for it. 

 

I liked what you put together (Gave you a like) and I appreciated your effort but limiting the discussion to the past 4 world series winners makes what is already a too small sample size even smaller by ignoring the Yankees Bullpen last year and the Indians Bullpen Last Year and the Year before that. The set of data is just too new since it seemed to start with the Royals. 

 

I come by my opinion honestly... I watched the Royals in 2014 do amazing things with a bunch of young energetic position players that were able to put up crooked numbers with a very average starting rotation still keeping it close. Then that scary bullpen would hit the stage and they overcame the average rotation and almost got the job done if it wasn't for Bumgarner and then get the job done in 2015 against the big scary Mets rotation. 

 

I watched the Indians acquire Andrew Miller in 2016 and then I watched Francona put him in the game in the 4th inning and then leave him in for the 5th and 6th before turning it over to Shaw or whoever. I watched Francona put Miller in the 7th inning the very next day when everyone would assume he was toast and I realized that Francona just created a new valuable thing and everybody needed one. 

 

It's my opinion... that if the Twins would have acquired Miller under similar circumstances. He would have been the traditional 8th inning set up guy or closer and locked into that role. Francona showed everyone a new way to do it. Put him in... regardless if the team was ahead or behind. Use him when it matters no matter what the inning was. 

 

I watched the Yankees take the bullpen to perhaps a higher level still last year. Adding Robertson and Kahnle to Chapman, Betences, Green and Warren. 

 

I believe the prices will continue to go up and I believe that results will be inconsistent or volatile because players are inconsistent and volatile when you are using 50 to 70 IP's or 100 to 200 AB's data sets.

 

However... I am not advocating ignoring the rotation or any other position from Shortstop to the I.T. department because it can be done with a bullpen alone. 

 

BTW... I'm Ok with the Rodney Signing.... I'm just really really pro bullpen.    

 

[USAFChief]

Bullpens have been important for a long time, and get more and more important as starters eat up fewer and fewer innings.

 

Sometimes relievers are unable to repeat past success. So what? That doesn't mean it's a good idea to trust your bullpen to pitchers who have NEVER had success.

[ashbury]

I liked what you put together (Gave you a like) and I appreciated your effort but limiting the discussion to the past 4 world series winners makes what is already a too small sample size even smaller by ignoring the Yankees Bullpen last year and the Indians Bullpen Last Year and the Year before that. The set of data is just too new since it seemed to start with the Royals.

My aim was a lot more limited than yours seems to be. To discredit "the best translation to successful W-L outcomes" (my emphasis) doesn't require much of a study, just a few compelling counterexamples. I didn't cherry pick, just said, OK, what about the WS winners like KC, and convinced myself that the next two years didn't fit this narrative of there being some kind of new rule that KC ushered in.

 

A contending team usually needs to be balanced, and the deeper into the post-season you want to go, the better each phase of your team needs to be. To win it all, you shouldn't plan on having gaping holes. The Twins didn't measure up to Houston in 2017 in any phase of the game - hitting, starting pitching, or relievers. (Maybe defense.) Lotta work still to do.

 

I didn't get the impression kab was staking out a position too different from mine either. Since none of us is advocating to pump up just the bullpen massively and call it an off-season, nor to ignore the bullpen, I think I can stop belaboring my point.

[ashbury]

Bullpens have been important for a long time, and get more and more important as starters eat up fewer and fewer innings.

 

Sometimes relievers are unable to repeat past success. So what? That doesn't mean it's a good idea to trust your bullpen to pitchers who have NEVER had success.

Not to disagree, particularly, but to elaborate: There's a limit to how much farther the present trend of bullpen use can go anyway, at least with 25-man rosters. Every season you need to cover about 1450 innings (162x9, approximately, plus or minus 8-inning losses and extra-inning games), so even if you expand your pitching staff to 14, that's about 100 innings each. It's not too hard to find guys that can give you 60 good innings a year from the bullpen - that comes out to an inning every 3 games or so. Max effort guys will do this for you, but then you need 24 of them. You can ask more from a given pitcher, and in most cases the quality will suffer. Whether you designate your 3+ inning guys to start the game or come into the middle, there is a premium to be attached to those who can do what it takes to last longer than an inning and still get guys out. They are not plentiful. Starters can't "eat up" much fewer innings than they're doing now or you're going to run out of capable pitchers to cover the innings.

[Squirrel]

Not to disagree, particularly, but to elaborate: There's a limit to how much farther the present trend of bullpen use can go anyway, at least with 25-man rosters. Every season you need to cover about 1450 innings (162x9, approximately, plus or minus 8-inning losses and extra-inning games), so even if you expand your pitching staff to 14, that's about 100 innings each. It's not too hard to find guys that can give you 60 good innings a year from the bullpen - that comes out to an inning every 3 games or so. Max effort guys will do this for you, but then you need 24 of them. You can ask more from a given pitcher, and in most cases the quality will suffer. Whether you designate your 3+ inning guys to start the game or come into the middle, there is a premium to be attached to those who can do what it takes to last longer than an inning and still get guys out. They are not plentiful. Starters can't "eat up" much fewer innings than they're doing now or you're going to run out of capable pitchers to cover the innings.

And of course you used math to express yourself.

 

“Mathematics is the most fundamental type of logic possible (in physics anyway), and therefore it is easy to reason that mathematics is the best way of expressing the universe. But if we choose to ignore the murky waters of elementary logic, mathematics becomes the language of the universe simply because it has to be.”

[bird]

Ah. The perfect storm.

 

Chief has said he's tired of hearing, year after year, that the team has pitchers in the pipeline that might solve the problem.

 

I, coincidentally, have had on my bucket list a desire to inflict someone with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome just for the h*ll of it.

 

Hildenberger

Rodney

Rogers

Busenitz

Moya

Duffey

Pressly

Hughes

Curtiss

May

Chargois

Mejia

Jay

Romero

Boshers

Jorge

Enns

Stewart

Eades

Pineda later

Burdi returned

Bard returned

Kinley

Melotakis

Hakimer

Vasquez

Baxendale

Jones

 

Geez, I'm tired. That's a lotta typing.

 

 

 

[Riverbrian]

 

My aim was a lot more limited than yours seems to be. To discredit "the best translation to successful W-L outcomes" (my emphasis) doesn't require much of a study, just a few compelling counterexamples. I didn't cherry pick, just said, OK, what about the WS winners like KC, and convinced myself that the next two years didn't fit this narrative of there being some kind of new rule that KC ushered in.

 

A contending team usually needs to be balanced, and the deeper into the post-season you want to go, the better each phase of your team needs to be. To win it all, you shouldn't plan on having gaping holes. The Twins didn't measure up to Houston in 2017 in any phase of the game - hitting, starting pitching, or relievers. (Maybe defense.) Lotta work still to do.

 

I didn't get the impression kab was staking out a position too different from mine either. Since none of us is advocating to pump up just the bullpen massively and call it an off-season, nor to ignore the bullpen, I think I can stop belaboring my point.

 

We don't seem to be too far away. As long as neither of us assume that either of us is not advocating doing it only with bullpen or ignoring the bullpen entirely. 

 

I'm a 25 man guy

 

I want 25 men on the roster who can all contribute to victory. I'd like the Twins to top the Astros in all phases. I'm praying that we sign Darvish. 

 

I just don't believe that Money that was previous allocated to filling out a bullpen is sustainable at that budget rate anymore for any team... and absolutely not... for any team that considers themselves contenders. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Riverbrian]

 

Not to disagree, particularly, but to elaborate: There's a limit to how much farther the present trend of bullpen use can go anyway, at least with 25-man rosters. Every season you need to cover about 1450 innings (162x9, approximately, plus or minus 8-inning losses and extra-inning games), so even if you expand your pitching staff to 14, that's about 100 innings each. It's not too hard to find guys that can give you 60 good innings a year from the bullpen - that comes out to an inning every 3 games or so. Max effort guys will do this for you, but then you need 24 of them. You can ask more from a given pitcher, and in most cases the quality will suffer. Whether you designate your 3+ inning guys to start the game or come into the middle, there is a premium to be attached to those who can do what it takes to last longer than an inning and still get guys out. They are not plentiful. Starters can't "eat up" much fewer innings than they're doing now or you're going to run out of capable pitchers to cover the innings.

 

So if we need 24 of them... Asking for 7 seems reasonable.     

[Doomtints]

I noticed two things:

 

- Rodney has a 7.3 bWAR over the course of his 14+ year career.

- The Twins are paying him more than double what he made last season, when including the "easily attainable incentives."

 

There is no way the Twins paid market rate for this guy, this is an overpay and was a terrible early move for a guy who would still have been available in three months.

 

OK he's a vet and can mentor young guys, but the team needs players to pitch the ball too. I put a lot of value in vet presence and mentoring, but this move doesn't make sense if he becomes the closer during the regular season. The Twins won't make the playoffs in 2018 if Rodney is their closer.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Doomtints

[h2oface]

 

I noticed two things:

 

- Rodney has a 7.3 bWAR over the course of his 14+ year career.

- The Twins are paying him more than double what he made last season, when including the "easily attainable incentives."

 

There is no way the Twins paid market rate for this guy, this is an overpay and was a terrible early move for a guy who would still have been available in three months.

 

OK he's a vet and can mentor young guys, but the team needs players to pitch the ball too. I put a lot of value in vet presence and mentoring, but this move doesn't make sense if he becomes the closer during the regular season. The Twins won't make the playoffs in 2018 if Rodney is their closer.

 

I totally agree. A 4.23 ERA with 4.2 BB/9 last year in 55.1 innings. How he got 39 saves last year is a miracle. Maybe we will get lucky and he will get hurt in spring training.....  Now that's not nice......  but it will save the inevitable damage early in the season, and just cost money and not games.

Edited December 21, 2017 by h2oface

[nicksaviking]

I noticed two things:

 

- Rodney has a 7.3 bWAR over the course of his 14+ year career.

- The Twins are paying him more than double what he made last season, when including the "easily attainable incentives."

 

There is no way the Twins paid market rate for this guy, this is an overpay and was a terrible early move for a guy who would still have been available in three months.

 

OK he's a vet and can mentor young guys, but the team needs players to pitch the ball too. I put a lot of value in vet presence and mentoring, but this move doesn't make sense if he becomes the closer during the regular season. The Twins won't make the playoffs in 2018 if Rodney is their closer.

I'm rather indifferent on Rodney, I'm still going to be disappointed if they don't go bigger and better with free agency. But who cares if they paid more than market rate? It still ain't much.

 

Also Rodney isn't going to determine if this team makes the playoffs, that will hinge on the starters. AZ got to the playoffs with Rodney as the closer.

[ashbury]

I totally agree. A 4.23 ERA with 4.2 BB/9 last year in 55.1 innings. How he got 39 saves last year is a miracle.

Here's one idea how: opposing batters compiled a .582 OPS against him.

 

Nowadays we measure batters more by the components they provide toward scoring runs, rather than the runs and runs batted in themselves, but somehow for pitchers we have moved beyond ERA with things like FIP rather than the underlying components. I don't know for sure which is better, nor do I believe OPS is more than a quick-and-dirty measure of offense, but a pitcher with an OPS like that should be expected to hold the opponents scoreless often enough to rack up some saves.

 

As others have noted, Rodney gave up crooked numbers 7 times in 2017, which inflates a reliever's ERA, but in 48 of his 61 games he shut out the opposition, the vast majority of the time for a full inning which suggests he did the job he was called on to do.

 

I'm not enthused by his signing, and age most surely is not his friend at this point, but the more I look the less outrage I feel.

[jimmer]

Here's one idea how: opposing batters compiled a .582 OPS against him.

 

Nowadays we measure batters more by the components they provide toward scoring runs, rather than the runs and runs batted in themselves, but somehow for pitchers we have moved beyond ERA with things like FIP rather than the underlying components. I don't know for sure which is better, nor do I believe OPS is more than a quick-and-dirty measure of offense, but a pitcher with an OPS like that should be expected to hold the opponents scoreless often enough to rack up some saves.

 

As others have noted, Rodney gave up crooked numbers 7 times in 2017, which inflates a reliever's ERA, but in 48 of his 61 games he shut out the opposition, the vast majority of the time for a full inning which suggests he did the job he was called on to do.

 

I'm not enthused by his signing, and age most surely is not his friend at this point, but the more I look the less outrage I feel.

I don't know too many people who look at FIP for closers (or even relievers).