Article: Craig Kimbrel and Risk Tolerance

[DocBauer]

You are right! Same with the Brewers, Astros and Yankees. 

 

Using the Dodgers as an example... Check out the creative way they assembled that bullpen for the playoffs. 3 starters Maeda, Wood and Urias joining mainstays Jansen and Baez. Madson was a trade acquisition after the Nats placed him on waivers. Dylan Floro was reacquired in a trade with the Reds after the Dodgers waived him in 2018.  Floro was previously waived by the Dodgers in 2018, The Cubs in 2017 and the Rays in 2017.

 

I think is a very salient point, regardless of how anyone feels about the Kimbrel situation. Like it or not, this FO is still quite new and an arguement could be made from drafting, FA, trades, new manager and coaches from the top down, that they are really only fully implementing all their ideas, observations and plans for what is now their second full year. Like him or not, one thing Terry Ryan did well was find some pretty good options for the bullpen over the years. Some guys were decent arms known, some were converted starters, some came out of nowhere. We don't really have a track history, as of yet, how this FO sees building a successful pen.

 

IMO, there was hope and belief Romero, Mejia and Reed could provide at least one viable option to go along with what they had, with maybe a surprise or two. To say the least, it hasn't worked out that way as of yet. Time for plan B. But Brian's example of how the Dodgers built their pen is worth noting. Also, as someone posted before the season began, the Padres built quite a pen last year much the same way.

 

I find it very interesting that in his few innings when up, Littell looked much more comfortable than last season and threw harder than before. (Duffey as well thus far). And since his return to Rochester, Littell has been used exclusively out of the pen. While a big move hasnt happened yet, the FO IS looking for options, just internally at this point.

 

Also going to suck-up to Brian again, LOL, in his opinion on usage of the arms on hand. I have largely applauded Rocco's usage of his pen. For the most part, I think he's done a fine job. And in a 7 or 8 man pen, all pitchers are NOT created equal. But if a guy is going to be rostered, then USE HIM. They've done a pretty good job of playing the option/roster game to roll through guys and keep fresh arms and offer auditions. And to some degree, the coaching staff is still learning about some of these guys.

 

But the next couple of weeks are critical. With such a talented and mostly young ML roster, and one of the deepest systems around, you can afford to trade away 4-6 quality prospects in the top 10-30 to bring in a quality RP or two come July 1st. Be aggressive and strike early. Use the next few weeks to further evaluate what you have on hand at the ML and AAA level, and then cut where you believe it's smart to do so. Take some time to evaluate/audition, and then be aggressive. Smart, but aggressive.

 

And as the second half of the season unfolds and Romero, Mejia, Littell, etc, prove their ready, just more depth and icing on the cake.

[Squirrel]

 

Doesn’t make sense to me to not give him 3 years if you’re already offering him two. I mean sure that one extra year could be an albatross but again, you’re already offering two... and you’re playing for October. This season. 2019. I’m not blaming the FO for this one though.

I'm actually fine with passing on Kimbrel and not going three years on him. My frustration is more about not signing one or two good relievers in the off-season when they were available. If for whatever reason there was that didn't make this FO comfortable with offering 3 years on Kimbrel, there were other options. I find that more of a frustration than not specifically signing Kimbrel. But, for now ... we're winning with what we have. I think that buys us a bit of time to address the BP before the August deadline ... although I hope they address it before then. And yeah, they could have before this, but didn't. It's frustrating, but it's over. I hope they do something instead. I can't imagine any FO thinking that 'standing pat' on what we have now gets us through the playoffs, because I don't believe it will. I'll keep my frustration at bay, though ... for now ... to see what they do in the coming weeks.

[prouster]

Well, why don't we just agree that the most likely scenario existed then? We simply did not offer as much money or years. The terms were inferior.

 

I agree. This is the most reasonable assumption, especially given what’s been reported about the Twins’ offer.

[BattleYourTailOff]

I’d like to see moves made before July 1st adding to what other posters have said. There’s enough teams that know they’re out of it early to acquire good arms without too much headache.

[Jham]

I'm actually fine with passing on Kimbrel and not going three years on him. My frustration is more about not signing one or two good relievers in the off-season when they were available. If for whatever reason there was that didn't make this FO comfortable with offering 3 years on Kimbrel, there were other options. I find that more of a frustration than not specifically signing Kimbrel. But, for now ... we're winning with what we have. I think that buys us a bit of time to address the BP before the August deadline ... although I hope they address it before then. And yeah, they could have before this, but didn't. It's frustrating, but it's over. I hope they do something instead. I can't imagine any FO thinking that 'standing pat' on what we have now gets us through the playoffs, because I don't believe it will. I'll keep my frustration at bay, though ... for now ... to see what they do in the coming weeks.

I don't get this argument either. If you're mad at not getting help in the off-season, why are you not upset about missing ot on Kimbrel? We can't go back to winter meetings. We can't untrade Pressley. 3 years for Kimbrel isn't an ideal option. But it was probably the best option left. Watch us get outbid for Giles and Smith and then overpay for guys that don't really make us better.

 

We've been pointing for this year for at least 3 or 4 years. We're now pinning our hopes on Duffey, or Hildenberger returning to dominance or giving up top prospects for guys who might not be better than Kimbrel.

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't get this argument either. If you're mad at not getting help in the off-season, why are you not upset about missing ot on Kimbrel? We can't go back to winter meetings. We can't untrade Pressley. 3 years for Kimbrel isn't an ideal option. But it was probably the best option left. Watch us get outbid for Giles and Smith and then overpay for guys that don't really make us better.

 

We've been pointing for this year for at least 3 or 4 years. We're now pinning our hopes on Duffey, or Hildenberger returning to dominance or giving up top prospects for guys who might not be better than Kimbrel.

If they aren't as good as Kimbrel, we wouldn't need to give up top prospects.

Also, trade capital is one of the reasons to have a deep farm system. There is no shame in using them to improve your ballclub.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

They just may not have trusted him to hold up as a three year investment.  That's justifiable.  It also makes it about the money.  (Terms)

 

As it is in 99.9% of all free agent negotiations.

Yeah, it can be both about the money and a sound decision. Whether we want to admit it or not, this is (mostly) a zero sum game.

 

Time will tell who is right about Kimbrel (though if he fails, it's entirely possible the Cubs also expected it and simply do not care... that's the luxury they have of carrying a payroll well north of $200m).

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I don't get this argument either. If you're mad at not getting help in the off-season, why are you not upset about missing ot on Kimbrel? We can't go back to winter meetings. We can't untrade Pressley. 3 years for Kimbrel isn't an ideal option. But it was probably the best option left. Watch us get outbid for Giles and Smith and then overpay for guys that don't really make us better.

We've been pointing for this year for at least 3 or 4 years. We're now pinning our hopes on Duffey, or Hildenberger returning to dominance or giving up top prospects for guys who might not be better than Kimbrel.

For starters, because Kimbrel is a moderate risk himself, particularly for 2019, which is what I really care about right now.

 

Who do you trust more, a pitcher having a solid 2019 season (fill in your tradable reliever of choice here) or Craig Kimbrel? I lean away from Kimbrel in that situation because I think he's something of a wild card for the 2019 season.

 

What bothers me about last offseason is that it appears they didn't even really try hard to find a reliever. They shored up the offense, spent a considerable about of money, but still came in under the previous season's payroll threshold while failing to pick up a solid relief arm. That really irks me.

 

Other arms will be available. When it comes to trading players or signing free agents, I generally try to avoid clinging to a specific name. What I care about is acquiring a good player, not the player I've chosen using my limited knowledge and data resources.

[jorgenswest]

I trust Kimbrel more than Parker, May, Duffey, Harper...

 

I don’t think he is the best option. I would trust Smith, Giles and Hand over Kimbrel.

[USAFChief]

 

I trust Kimbrel more than Parker, May, Duffey, Harper...

I don’t think he is the best option. I would trust Smith, Giles and Hand over Kimbrel.

I'd trust Kimbrel and two of Giles, Hand, or Smith over either.

 

 

[Jham]

If they aren't as good as Kimbrel, we wouldn't need to give up top prospects.

Also, trade capital is one of the reasons to have a deep farm system. There is no shame in using them to improve your ballclub.

I agree whole heartedly on your second point. I hate the term untouchable because those gus are frequently what it takes to really improve your club. Recent untouchables include Jay, Stewart, Gordon, Romero, Sano, and Buxton. Every one of those players trade value has dropped significantly other than maybe Buxton who has probably only lost a little.

 

Regarding trading more to get less, that's the nature of the trade deadline. All I was saying is that if you feel we needed to add arms before the season, and now that need is more evident than ever, why would you not feel like Kimbrel was a huge missed opportunity? We still need a guy. We won't be able to add anyone for another 40 games most likely, and we don't know if we'll get the guys we want. It's much more likely we'll settle for guys that aren't big upgrades that profile as worse than Kimbrel. Could Kimbrel be the next Glen Perkins or Reed? Of course. Point is, free agency is gone, late free agency is gone. We're running out of options at the same time our need is becoming more dire.

[Mr. Brooks]

I agree whole heartedly on your second point. I hate the term untouchable because those gus are frequently what it takes to really improve your club. Recent untouchables include Jay, Stewart, Gordon, Romero, Sano, and Buxton. Every one of those players trade value has dropped significantly other than maybe Buxton who has probably only lost a little.

 

Regarding trading more to get less, that's the nature of the trade deadline. All I was saying is that if you feel we needed to add arms before the season, and now that need is more evident than ever, why would you not feel like Kimbrel was a huge missed opportunity? We still need a guy. We won't be able to add anyone for another 40 games most likely, and we don't know if we'll get the guys we want. It's much more likely we'll settle for guys that aren't big upgrades that profile as worse than Kimbrel. Could Kimbrel be the next Glen Perkins or Reed? Of course. Point is, free agency is gone, late free agency is gone. We're running out of options at the same time our need is becoming more dire.

I don't think any of those guys you listed were ever considered untouchable, except Buxton and Sano.

Buxton is on his way to an 8+ bWAR season at the MLB level. He has far more trade value right now than he ever had as a prospect. It's quite amazing to me that people haven't noticed the season he is having.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Regarding trading more to get less, that's the nature of the trade deadline. All I was saying is that if you feel we needed to add arms before the season, and now that need is more evident than ever, why would you not feel like Kimbrel was a huge missed opportunity? We still need a guy. We won't be able to add anyone for another 40 games most likely, and we don't know if we'll get the guys we want. It's much more likely we'll settle for guys that aren't big upgrades that profile as worse than Kimbrel.

One can feel it's a missed opportunity while not feeling it's a "huge" missed opportunity because of the risk. I'm disappointed by the Twins' failure to get Kimbrel but I'm far from heartbroken over it.

 

As for "40 games" until a trade is made, two questions:

 

1. When do you expect Kimbrel to throw his first pitch for the Cubs?

2. When do you expect Kimbrel to throw his first effective pitch for the Cubs?

 

The difference between "40 days to make a trade" and the answer to #2 may not be terribly different in the best case scenario and the answer could pretty easily swing heavily in favor of the trade solution without squinting too much.

 

We're talking about a very good reliever, for sure, but one that will not have thrown a competitive pitch in 8-9 months when he takes the mound for the Cubs.

[TheLeviathan]

Right, we've seen how guys that were late to sign and missed ST really struggled.  (See: Alex Cobb, Lance Lynn, etc)

 

It's reasonable to assume that Kimbrel may be late in the summer, if at all, that he is an effective reliever.  If you value 2019, it's possible we're better off trading for that help. 

[SwainZag]

 

I’d like to see moves made before July 1st adding to what other posters have said. There’s enough teams that know they’re out of it early to acquire good arms without too much headache.

 

You have to find a partner that is willing to deal early to make that happen.  I think most teams know that they can probably get more, or at least more teams interested if they wait more towards the trade deadline.  So unless the Twins are willing to overpay now, they are better off waiting sell their pieces.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Right, we've seen how guys that were late to sign and missed ST really struggled. (See: Alex Cobb, Lance Lynn, etc)

 

It's reasonable to assume that Kimbrel may be late in the summer, if at all, that he is an effective reliever. If you value 2019, it's possible we're better off trading for that help.

I don't know how reasonable this assumption is. Time seems to be proving that Cobb and Lynn were fully capable of producing those performances on their own, regardless of their late starts.

 

I'm open to the possibility, but there doesn't seem to be enough data to support any assumptions better than a guess.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't know how reasonable this assumption is. Time seems to be proving that Cobb and Lynn were fully capable of producing those performances on their own, regardless of their late starts.

I'm open to the possibility, but there doesn't seem to be enough data to support any assumptions better than a guess.

 

Um, it couldn't be more "reasonable".  All baseball teams ask their pitchers and catchers to report a month or more in advance of the season.  Why?  Because baseball players, especially pitchers, need repetition to prepare their arms.  Kimbrel may have been doing things on the side but that isn't the same thing.

 

What limited data we have suggests that it is a challenge for players to come back from.  Is it conclusive?  Of course not, hence the words "possible" and "could".  But the idea that a pitcher might struggle to come back right away after missing all of ST and two and a half months of the season is about as reasonable an assumption as one could hold methinks.  (And that is to say nothing - NOTHING - about the wisdom of signing him.  Just to have due skepticism about his impact this year.  Had we signed Kimbrel, which I wanted, I'd have still wanted another reliever and starter.  Same thing I want now)

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Um, it couldn't be more "reasonable".  All baseball teams ask their pitchers and catchers to report a month or more in advance of the season.  Why?  Because baseball players, especially pitchers, need repetition to prepare their arms.  Kimbrel may have been doing things on the side but that isn't the same thing.

 

What limited data we have suggests that it is a challenge for players to come back from.  Is it conclusive?  Of course not, hence the words "possible" and "could".  But the idea that a pitcher might struggle to come back right away after missing all of ST and two and a half months of the season is about as reasonable an assumption as one could hold methinks.  (And that is to say nothing - NOTHING - about the wisdom of signing him.  Just to have due skepticism about his impact this year.  Had we signed Kimbrel, which I wanted, I'd have still wanted another reliever and starter.  Same thing I want now)

I said I'm open to the possibility. He certainly might struggle to come back right away like you say here, but your original post -- "It's reasonable to assume that Kimbrel may be late in the summer, if at all, that he is an effective reliever" -- just struck me as going a bit beyond that. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption that he might not be an effective reliever *at all* in 2019 based solely on the late start. Especially as a reliever as opposed to a starter or position player, and the different requirements and responsibilities, I question whether there's any meaningful data that could point to that assumption. (Cobb and Lynn are pretty questionable data points just among starters, much less trying to project that onto a reliever, and perhaps an elite one.)

 

He might not be an effective reliever in 2019, but if it turns out that way I'd guess it's more of a talent/skill issue than a late start one. (Although declining talent/skill may have contributed to why he had a late start too -- a bit of a "chicken or the egg" situation!)

[Jham]

One can feel it's a missed opportunity while not feeling it's a "huge" missed opportunity because of the risk. I'm disappointed by the Twins' failure to get Kimbrel but I'm far from heartbroken over it.

 

As for "40 games" until a trade is made, two questions:

 

1. When do you expect Kimbrel to throw his first pitch for the Cubs?

2. When do you expect Kimbrel to throw his first effective pitch for the Cubs?

 

The difference between "40 days to make a trade" and the answer to #2 may not be terribly different in the best case scenario and the answer could pretty easily swing heavily in favor of the trade solution without squinting too much.

 

We're talking about a very good reliever, for sure, but one that will not have thrown a competitive pitch in 8-9 months when he takes the mound for the Cubs.

Fair. I think kimbrel is better than Cobb or Lynn. I just don't see how a third year was a substantial risk when we're essentially looking for this year and the playoffs. A third year seems like a silly reason to drop out of the race. We have payroll flexibility. 3 years isn't a long contract. And despite all the talk of risk, he has significant upside as well. Focusing in upside, it is exceedingly unlikely we trade for a guy with Kimbrel upside, let alone experience and pure stuff. It's unlikely we're willing to part with more than the Astros, Brewers, Dodgers, and Yankees who have all showed the willingness to part with significant assets.

 

You can assume that Kimbrel will struggle initially. It could be equally "safe to assume" that Kimbrel will come back rested, rejuvenated and healthier for the time off.

 

A third year for a team with 2 players signed past this year (for cheap) and an obvious need for help in the pen this year is no risk at all. Especially since that third year is only 1 more year from what we offered. Maybe he still signs with Chicago. But to not even try to match isn't trying, imo.

 

Also, we could have signed Kimbrel AND traded for another stopper. If we handed the ball to Kimbrel, Rogers, and Giles? Shorten the games with our offense, and suddenly I'm loving our shot at the whole thing.

Edited June 11, 2019 by Jham

[Riverbrian]

 

I think is a very salient point, regardless of how anyone feels about the Kimbrel situation. Like it or not, this FO is still quite new and an arguement could be made from drafting, FA, trades, new manager and coaches from the top down, that they are really only fully implementing all their ideas, observations and plans for what is now their second full year. Like him or not, one thing Terry Ryan did well was find some pretty good options for the bullpen over the years. Some guys were decent arms known, some were converted starters, some came out of nowhere. We don't really have a track history, as of yet, how this FO sees building a successful pen.

IMO, there was hope and belief Romero, Mejia and Reed could provide at least one viable option to go along with what they had, with maybe a surprise or two. To say the least, it hasn't worked out that way as of yet. Time for plan B. But Brian's example of how the Dodgers built their pen is worth noting. Also, as someone posted before the season began, the Padres built quite a pen last year much the same way.

I find it very interesting that in his few innings when up, Littell looked much more comfortable than last season and threw harder than before. (Duffey as well thus far). And since his return to Rochester, Littell has been used exclusively out of the pen. While a big move hasnt happened yet, the FO IS looking for options, just internally at this point.

Also going to suck-up to Brian again, LOL, in his opinion on usage of the arms on hand. I have largely applauded Rocco's usage of his pen. For the most part, I think he's done a fine job. And in a 7 or 8 man pen, all pitchers are NOT created equal. But if a guy is going to be rostered, then USE HIM. They've done a pretty good job of playing the option/roster game to roll through guys and keep fresh arms and offer auditions. And to some degree, the coaching staff is still learning about some of these guys.

But the next couple of weeks are critical. With such a talented and mostly young ML roster, and one of the deepest systems around, you can afford to trade away 4-6 quality prospects in the top 10-30 to bring in a quality RP or two come July 1st. Be aggressive and strike early. Use the next few weeks to further evaluate what you have on hand at the ML and AAA level, and then cut where you believe it's smart to do so. Take some time to evaluate/audition, and then be aggressive. Smart, but aggressive.

And as the second half of the season unfolds and Romero, Mejia, Littell, etc, prove their ready, just more depth and icing on the cake.

 

The bullpen needs to be attacked in the same fashion as the position players on our current roster. Find out who your guys will be and you can only find that through opportunity. Every member of the bullpen must be trusted... if you don't trust them and therefore don't use them as a result. Cut them, demote them and move on in search of a guy that you will trust and use. Rinse and repeat until you got a pen that is worthy of winning us a world series. 

 

This isn't as simple as trading for Ken Giles, Will Smith and Brad Hand, declaring your work done for the year and just letting it buck the rest of the way. We don't know who will be healthy and ready come playoff time October. Circumstances change all the time in baseball. Players get hurt or get the case of the struggles. 

 

You trade for Giles and you cut Magill to make room. You sign Will Smith and you cut Morin to make room... You trade for Hand and send Duffey down to AAA. The Twinsdaily forum posters will applaud and be very excited about the upgrades and I will join you all in the celebration because we need to acquire arms. but... sometime after the acquisitions... we can expect injury, poor performance or something. It happens all the time. 

 

Chalk it up to bad luck is the easy answer but that answer is a cop out. Trade for all 3... I encourage it but ignoring your depth is an excuse that I will pin right back on the management team if they try to use injury as an excuse. 

 

Bullpens are built by providing opportunity. Depth is important on the mound just like it's important on offense and defense.

 

We are looking at a largely untested bullpen right now. The starting rotation has been primarily carrying the water. Look how quickly things changed for the Indians... Kluber hurt, Carrasco Hurt, Clevinger Hurt, Bauer struggling all of a sudden. Now imagine if our Twins went through something similar to that in the coming months.

 

Chalk it up to bad luck, is the quick and easy answer as you just lay down and die. However, we just got done watching the Brewers, get by without a rotation by relying on the bullpen in the playoffs last year. We watched the Rays and A's do it last year. The team doesn't have to lay down and die. It can still compete if they get bullpen serious... right now. I'm not saying it's ideal but it isn't a death sentence unless you let it be one. 

 

You are right Doc... Terry Ryan found some good options over the years and he found almost all of them on the scrap heap... In my opinion, the reason he was seemingly good at finding cheap help was because he seemed to settle for scrap heap finds as a bullpen staffing philosophy and therefore provided them opportunity to become a good option by not pursuing better options and it worked out a good portion of the time. But again... Opportunity was the key component of finding them. 

 

We need to pursue all options and never stop searching for a bullpen full of talent. Pursue the top of the line, while simultaneously testing our in house options whenever we can. To do this... you need to expose them all to the opportunity. 25 players who can play is the only way to do it. 

 

We are all watching the offense do this right now. We lose Cruz and Garver and keep on... keeping on. They all take an occasional day off so others can play and we keep on... keeping on. 

 

We need depth and this is how you find and develop depth... You play it.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

He might not be an effective reliever in 2019, but if it turns out that way I'd guess it's more of a talent/skill issue than a late start one. (Although declining talent/skill may have contributed to why he had a late start too -- a bit of a "chicken or the egg" situation!)

 

It may be hard to differentiate the two.  Players that start this late in the year are typically coming back from injury.  I admit, I have no data on this, but it sure seems like those players are typically not their best the rest of the season.  Now, that could be injury, it could be rust, it could be both.  

 

I'm simply saying there is a far higher degree of likelihood that a reliever we trade for is going to be what we expect in 2019.  Kimbrel could be something of a wildcard.  (Again, a wildcard I wanted.  The downside is there, but so is the upside)

Edited June 11, 2019 by TheLeviathan

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Fair. I think kimbrel is better than Cobb or Lynn. I just don't see how a third year was a substantial risk when we're essentially looking for this year and the playoffs. A third year seems like a silly reason to drop out of the race. We have payroll flexibility. 3 years isn't a long contract. And despite all the talk of risk, he has significant upside as well. Focusing in upside, it is exceedingly unlikely we trade for a guy with Kimbrel upside, let alone experience and pure stuff. It's unlikely we're willing to part with more than the Astros, Brewers, Dodgers, and Yankees who have all showed the willingness to part with significant assets.

You can assume that Kimbrel will struggle initially. It could be equally "safe to assume" that Kimbrel will come back rested, rejuvenated and healthier for the time off.

A third year for a team with 2 players signed past this year (for cheap) and an obvious need for help in the pen this year is no risk at all. Especially since that third year is only 1 more year from what we offered. Maybe he still signs with Chicago. But to not even try to match isn't trying, imo.

Also, we could have signed Kimbrel AND traded for another stopper. If we handed the ball to Kimbrel, Rogers, and Giles? Shorten the games with our offense, and suddenly I'm loving our shot at the whole thing.

While I agree the risk is being overblown a bit by some posters, there's always risk in putting more than 10% of your payroll into a single reliever. The opportunity cost of money going to one player and not another always carries risk with it. Perhaps the riskiest of all investments is relief pitching, which ups the stakes in this particular situation.

 

But overall, again, I'm mildly disappointed that the Twins didn't get Kimbrel and time will tell us whether they were right to back off a third year.

[Mike Sixel]

 

While I agree the risk is being overblown a bit by some posters, there's always risk in putting more than 10% of your payroll into a single reliever. The opportunity cost of money going to one player and not another always carries risk with it. Perhaps the riskiest of all investments is relief pitching, which ups the stakes in this particular situation.

 

But overall, again, I'm mildly disappointed that the Twins didn't get Kimbrel and time will tell us whether they were right to back off a third year.

 

That last sentence is key. Sometimes people think that if we voice displeasure at a decision, that we think it is awful/evil/the end. Mostly it's mild disappointment.

[KirbyDome89]

 

They've also only blown 4 leads.  There are three teams with three blown saves and a couple with four.  They are 11th in baseball in K/9.  They are 9th in K/BB.  10th in HRs allowed.  

 

I'm sure I don't need to explain that ERA is not a good measure of a bullpen. 

Neither are saves or holds. It's hard to blow huge leads even for the worst bullpens. 

 

 The bullpen has thrown the 2nd fewest innings in baseball thanks to a slow schedule to start the season and some deep games by the starting staff. Until recently they hadn't been taxed at all. With Perez looking like the guy we thought he was, Gibson once again struggling to find consistency, and Pineda being a 5ish inning guy, the warts that were largely ignored have become much more apparent. 

[TheLeviathan]

Neither are saves or holds. It's hard to blow huge leads even for the worst bullpens. 

 

 The bullpen has thrown the 2nd fewest innings in baseball thanks to a slow schedule to start the season and some deep games by the starting staff. Until recently they hadn't been taxed at all. With Perez looking like the guy we thought he was, Gibson once again struggling to find consistency, and Pineda being a 5ish inning guy, the warts that were largely ignored have become much more apparent.

 

Mostly i see people chomping at the bit to beat their personal dead horse. The bullpen performed well in April and May.

 

Ive said all along that they need more bullpen help. However, my belief in that isnt grounds to play pretend about their performance so far. That kind of nonsense is how obnoxious threads start.

[USAFChief]

 

Mostly i see people chomping at the bit to beat their personal dead horse. The bullpen performed well in April and May.

Ive said all along that they need more bullpen help. However, my belief in that isnt grounds to play pretend about their performance so far. That kind of nonsense is how obnoxious threads start.

Mod note: The use of descriptors such as "nonsense" to describe others' opinions is how threads turn obnoxious.

 

Knock it off.

 

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

It may be hard to differentiate the two.  Players that start this late in the year are typically coming back from injury.  I admit, I have no data on this, but it sure seems like those players are typically not their best the rest of the season.  Now, that could be injury, it could be rust, it could be both.  

 

I'm simply saying there is a far higher degree of likelihood that a reliever we trade for is going to be what we expect in 2019.  Kimbrel could be something of a wildcard.  (Again, a wildcard I wanted.  The downside is there, but so is the upside)

That's all fair, and I agree.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Mostly i see people chomping at the bit to beat their personal dead horse. The bullpen performed well in April and May.

Ive said all along that they need more bullpen help. However, my belief in that isnt grounds to play pretend about their performance so far. That kind of nonsense is how obnoxious threads start.

Meh maybe we're reading into the thread differently. I see most of the concern directed at moving forward rather than performance in April or May. IMO the last 2 weeks have been a wake up call although I'd argue that some of the warning signs were present even when things were rolling at the beginning of the season. 

 

I agree, the bullpen held together nicely the first couple months, but I also think the numbers are a bit deceiving. Bank the performance thus far, just don't expect those numbers to continue or improve. 

Edited June 11, 2019 by KirbyDome89

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

I agree, the bullpen held together nicely the first couple months, but I also think the numbers are a bit deceiving. Bank the performance thus far, just don't expect those numbers to continue or improve. 

 

We agree completely.