So... Why Trade Taylor Rogers?

[Cody Pirkl]

So the day before the season starts the Twins traded away the head of their bullpen and supposed closer. Taylor Rogers made up half of the projected fWAR of the Twins bullpen per Fangraphs. What was the front office thinking?

By now we’re all probably approaching the end of the grieving stage of losing Taylor Rogers in a massive Opening Day deal that brought Chris Paddack and Emilio Pagan to Minnesota. That being said, it’s probably time to consider why on earth the Twins would trade away their star closer at the start of a season in which they intend to compete.

The Pursuit of Value

By now we’ve come to expect the Twins front office to always search for value above all else when they’re making any kind of deal. In fairness, their successes across the last year are few and far between, but it’s easy to see the thought process they’re operating from.

In parting with Rogers, the Twins give up one year of a relief pitcher who may not even finish the season with the team if things fall apart before the trade deadline. In return, they receive a rotation-ready starting pitcher in Chris Paddack who’s under control for three years in addition to reliever Emilio Pagan who’s under control for two years. They did of course also ship out Brent Rooker, but by all accounts, he was likely on the verge of getting cut loose regardless.

When looking at pure value, it’s hard to argue against this trade. There’s almost no scenario where Rogers amasses more bWAR, fWAR, or whatever measurement you can find in his lone season in San Diego than Paddack and Pagan will in Minnesota across their five combined years. The math is certainly on the Twins' side for this trade. This however doesn’t tell the whole story as it misses the context of the Twins parting with their best reliever right before a 2022 season where they may desperately need him

Relievers are Unpredictable

Another core value of the Falvine era, the Twins simply don’t value relief pitchers highly. And to be honest, they probably shouldn’t. Relievers often burn bright for a few years before fading away. We see it year after year whether it’s Alex Colomé just stinking it up out of nowhere or Trevor Rosenthal succumbing to injury. Pitchers as a whole are always risky, but historically speaking relievers are particularly fickle.

Taylor Rogers may repeat his incredible performance in 2022, in fact, I’d bet on it. That being said, he did suffer a significant finger injury in 2021. Although he’s recovered and was looking great in the spring, he’s now into his 30s and the odds of a recurrence or even a new injury grows ever stronger. Is that reason for the Twins to look to actively dump their closer? No. But it does at least help explain why Rogers wasn’t untouchable in trade.

In addition to the risk of Rogers' performance or health slipping, it’s entirely possible several other arms step up in a big way to fill the void. Between pitchers such as Jorge Alcala who appeared to break out in the second half or newly bullpen-bound Jhoan Duran sitting in triple digits, it’s not hard to find candidates to take the lead in this group. Between AAA and the existing bullpen, there are several options to get some looks in high leverage and I see several taking the baseball world by storm in 2022. This group is undisputedly more talented than the bullpen the Twins fielded at the end of 2021 who by the way were rock solid without Taylor Rogers in the mix.

To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with hating this trade. The self-anointed “competitive” Twins roster just got a huge downgrade in their bullpen on paper no matter how you shake it. In addition, this could have been avoided had they just been more aggressive in signing legitimate starting pitching pre-lockout. Even for one year of Taylor Rogers, the Twins are taking a gamble on Chris Paddack and Emilio Pagan bouncing back. It’s one that’s not so different from the many bets the front office made last season that left them bankrupt.

That being said, aside from the personal attachment that comes with losing a homegrown star like Rogers, it’s easy to understand why the Twins made this deal. There’s a decent chance that we look back on this trade as a “win” for the Twins, and there’s a non-zero chance it can turn out to be an absolute home run. 

Should the Twins have stood pat with Rogers or perhaps asked for more in return? Do you think this deal will work out for the Twins in the long run? Let us know below!

View full article

[Trov]

I had no issue with the trade.  As pointed out pen pitchers are risky and can fall off quickly, and you can also get big seasons out of no where from many guys.  I personally feel people overvalue "closers".  I will agree, our pen is worse now then it was with Rogers, but I am not ready to say this will cost us any games in the long run.  Rogers was good, but not amazing.  I never felt when he was in there the game was over, like when Nathan was here.  

I would also agree that the value brought back is most likely more than what we would have got at a mid-season trade if we are not winning.  To remain competitive, you need to continue to bring in guys with value and team control, and be willing to trade guys away before they walk for nothing.  The Rays do this all the time and do a great job at it. 

[roger]

Big Rogers fan, yet was concerned last year when he wasn't as lights out prior to going on the IL.  Granted, the injury may have had something to do with that.  Although I will miss him, as I suspect will the team, I understand the trade.

I am also curious who the PTBNL will be?  Or will that end up being cash, although if cash is an option it is usually stated when the deal is announced.  Could this be a legit prospect?  Or will it be more of a throw in?  I know nothing about the Padres system, but am hoping it is a solid, young catcher.

[ashbury]

The Twins wanted to go after a good starting pitcher.  Those don't grow on trees.  Those of use who have scratched our heads over the front office's propensity to prioritize bat-first players with questionable defense, and concluded that maybe they hope to flip them for pitching, continue to scratch our heads.  To land starting pitching in trade, the Twins have now three times (Maeda, Gray and Paddack) had to give up a live arm, not bats - the bats in two of these cases were a throw-in.  So, why trade Rogers?  To get controllable pitching.  Simple as that.  It can't be accomplished otherwise.

[Heiny]

I was at first a little skeptical of this trade,  because I didn't see it coming.  Was just expecting the Padres to be looking for a Kirilloff/Larnach/Kepler/Arraez.  But after thinking it over, I'm more ok with the deal.  Consider, with a 162 game schedule,  we will need approx. 1458 innings to be pitched.  With 5 starters to pitch 150 innings each (and that is a stretch), that leaves 708 innings.  If 8 relievers get 70 innings each, (and that is a stretch) that leaves 148 innnings.  Not accounting for extra innings games, injuries,  and poor performances,  I think we are going to need several innings eaters.  I also feel with the talent of our young guns,  this pen may be mightier than the sword of Rogers.  In any case, it seems that the FO is at least trying to make it a competitive season.  I'm looking forward to the games and hoping Paddack is going prove this to be a great trade for present "and future".

Edit:  Last year we had 35 pitchers pitch 1419.1 innings.  Berrios pitched the most innings with 121.2.  That is  why a complete new rotation seems like a possible good thing.

 

[LA VIkes Fan]

What ashbury said. We need controllable quality starting pitching. You have to give something of quality up to get that, something like Rogers. The real question is did we get controllable starting pitching in Paddack. I think so IF he isn't and doesn't get hurt. The "small UCL tear" is a little concerning. If that isn't a problem, I think we got a guy who will slot in as a #3/4 starter with an ERA in high 3s to mid 4s who can go 150 + innings a year. and who might be better than that. Plus we got a reliever who should be average and who also could be more. Giving up a quality reliever near the end of his contract is worth that return. Rooker had no trade value since he was on the verge of being waived so we can't count him as "value" lost. Great trade? No. Fair trade? Yes.   

[Dman]

There seems like a fair bit of risk on both sides of this trade.  I just don't love these Twins fix'em deals.  The last deal with Anderson left a sour taste. They didn't really help Waddell or Gibaut either granted no one had to that point but that is my point.  They were going to help Happ and Shoemaker too last year and well that didn't work out either. San Diego doesn't do this deal unless they think Paddack is who he is.  I think that is a two pitch pitcher with too straight a fastball.  With his potential elite change maybe this is Ryne Harper 2 where they can make things work but coming up with a third pitch this late seems a little pie in the sky to me.  I guess we will see but I am not holding my breath that Paddack is much more than a tik better than last year.

I am a little more bullish on Pagen since his main issue appears to be Home Run suppression they should be able to identify where he is giving up the hardest contact stay away from those pitches and those zones as much as possible.  Still a Home Run prone reliever is not a guy you want coming in with a game on the line.

Rogers only has one year left and it always felt like the Twins were going to try and deal him no matter what.  Elite lefties are unicorns in Baseball so they usually fetch a hefty price especially at the deadline.  I guess the larger question for me is could the Twins have gotten something better just by waiting? granted they were not going to get two MLB players at the deadline for Rogers but they might have pried away a top 5 prospect out of someone's system.  If Paddack remains who he is they essentially got nothing for Rogers so I hope like heck they know what they are doing this time. 

I guess if Pagan returns to dominant form the Twins wouldn't have gotten nothing in this deal but still I think they could have possibly done better grabbing a top prospect from some other system.

With Rooker who knows.  Seems like a risky bet for the Padres but he does have light tower power and with the NL having the DH if he proves he can hit it could be a good pickup.  He can play left but not well.  He does even out the years of control for both sides as he will have 6 years of control add Rogers and it 7 total years of control. Twins get 5 total years and with the PTBNL potentially more but the odds are low that the PTBNL works out.

It is a risk for risk trade and if the Twins do fix Paddack they win this in a landslide.  Odds seem to be on the Padres side though as they got the only proven player in the trade.  Granted only one year unless of course they can extend him.  It is a win now move for the Padres versus a who knows for the Twins.  It is an upside trade for the Twins I just hope this one works out.

[bunsen82]

This is a deal you make every day of the week.  However that doesn't make it feel any better.  Whether he was traded now or in July we were going to trade Rogers.  You don't let him go for no value.  So what were we able to get.  A pitcher who has raw talent can throw 95mph fastball and has a good change up.  Essentially he has been a two pitch starter.  He either has given up to easily on third pitch or hasn't been able to find a third pitch to incorporate.  The other issue is his fastball has become very flat and has been hitting right down the middle a significant amount of time and getting hammered.  He has had some poor defense which you would assume would lower the numbers from last year.  It appears he can give the fastball more life in the first couple innings then begins to tire out as the game goes on.  So the options are he becomes an effective 2 to 3 inning long relief or an opener start - or he develops a little more stamina and ideally a third pitch possibly a cutter.  This isn't the reclamation projects of before,  this is some slight tweaks, at the very least he should be a strong addition to the bullpen for short stints.  Most likely with better defense and a few tweaks and actually working with analytics which the Padres are way behind on,  we should be able to find a very capable #3 pitcher.  Those don't grow on trees, and we gave up at most 60 innings of Rogers for that chance.  The risk is the arm blows out for the second time.  You also picked up a reliever in Pagan.  Honestly he did really well until mid August then blew up.  He can be an effective arm in our bullpen, but again he can get blown up on hard hit balls.  He can fill in for Rogers but can't replace rogers.  It will be interesting to see which relievers take on the high leverage situations.  We were going to need to figure this out next year so why not do this a year early.  I have stated it before,  management is playing for 2023 - but they have given us enough to be excited for in this year to keep us interested.  They did very well in that aspect,  continuing the rebuild and retooling at the same time and not fully giving up on the season.  We need to be prepared for Correa and and potentially some of our 1 year gambles on pitching to be traded at the deadline unless we have a 2019 situation all over again.  We will just have to wait and see how this plays out.  

[mikelink45]

In an era where the BP seems to be gaining more value than the rotation I am not on board with this trade.  If Paddack was performing well I would be okay, but he has not. The Padres saw him as excess now that they have Manaea.  We say that Rogers has only one year because we seem to accept that everyone will be gone at the end of arbitration, but that did not have to be true.  

Paddack is not a sure thing, Pagan is not a sure thing, the rotation might be better, but maybe Winder would have been just as good and the bullpen is now shifted to a chaos where no one is sure of their role.  I see lots of positive responses, but I will be the curmudgeon in this discussion. 

[Doctor Gast]

I like the trade in that they traded Brent Rooker, trade from an area we have an over abundance (bat/ no glove). I didn't like the trade because it involved Taylor Rogers. Unless the Twins offered him a reasonable extention offer and he turned it down and he was dead set to walk, I'd say it was a good deal, but my impression is they did not, I'd place Rogers close to Pressley, closer is a position of importance and need. Rogers gave us some security there and we traded him away for 2 ?s at positions we had covered!

At face value it was a good trade but looking at a place of need we lost, instead of shoring up areas of need, they downgraded the closing position.

 

[mikelink45]

11 minutes ago, Doctor Gast said:

I like the trade in that they traded Brent Rooker, trade from an area we have an over abundance (bat/ no glove). I didn't like the trade because it involved Taylor Rogers. Unless the Twins offered him a reasonable extention offer and he turned it down and he was dead set to walk, I'd say it was a good deal, but my impression is they did not, I'd place Rogers close to Pressley, closer is a position of importance and need. Rogers gave us some security there and we traded him away for 2 ?s at positions we had covered!

At face value it was a good trade but looking at a place of need we lost, instead of shoring up areas of need, they downgraded the closing position.

 

Now we can see Pressly, Hendriks, and Rogers all closing!  I am not looking forward to it. Imagine if we had all of them, Graterol (67 games),  Chargois (10 - 6 3.73 and 1.6 WAR), and Zack Littell (10 - 2 3.73 1.2 WAR) could fill out the pen.  Sometimes what you have is better than the shiny toys somewhere else. 

[nicksaviking]

I'm not familiar with any quotes from the front office, if there were any, but they are always going to say they intend to "contend" or "compete".

The team very much could, and should be better this year, but using those trigger words are pure lip service. They know this season and the future are going to be determined by how the young starting pitching develops. There was no getting around that once the free agent pitchers were off the board. Rogers' final year here would have been squandered with him bidding his time while the team gets the future rotation sorted out.

But I'm still looking forward to a fun season and competitive baseball.

[dex8425]

40 minutes ago, mikelink45 said:

In an era where the BP seems to be gaining more value than the rotation I am not on board with this trade.  If Paddack was performing well I would be okay, but he has not. The Padres saw him as excess now that they have Manaea.  We say that Rogers has only one year because we seem to accept that everyone will be gone at the end of arbitration, but that did not have to be true.  

Paddack is not a sure thing, Pagan is not a sure thing, the rotation might be better, but maybe Winder would have been just as good and the bullpen is now shifted to a chaos where no one is sure of their role.  I see lots of positive responses, but I will be the curmudgeon in this discussion. 

I hear what you're saying, but if Paddack had pitched well last year then he would've cost the Twins Lewis, Balazovic, and Rogers. He would then be Frankie Montas, basically. EDIT: and I would not hope the Twins would trade Rogers, Balazovic and Lewis for Montas. 

[Rosterman]

My bigger question is: Obvious the Twins needed a Closer going into 2021. And especially in 2022. Why didn't they at least make an attempt to tackle this issue, eitehr via a trade (too) or a signing.

 

Thery had no idea how Rogers would return until spring games. And, truth-be-told, Rogers is an exceptional set-up guy who can close if you are winning so many games that your closer can't pitch every nite.

 

I hoped Alcala would develop in that direction, but he is not there yet. I had hoped that the Twins would've given other people an opportunity at the end of 2001 (Duffey, for example) instead of giving Colombe more value. At best, a light's out closer is valuable if you are the competing team you say you wish to be. The problem is you have two rookie starters who will be pushing to do 30 rotations and 150 innings, two reclamation projects, a bunch of rookies, and - at least now - two veterans who can eat some innings. 

 

April will be a telling month in Twins land! Can Rocco manage the bullpen!

[dex8425]

25 minutes ago, mikelink45 said:

Now we can see Pressly, Hendriks, and Rogers all closing!  I am not looking forward to it. Imagine if we had all of them, Graterol (67 games),  Chargois (10 - 6 3.73 and 1.6 WAR), and Zack Littell (10 - 2 3.73 1.2 WAR) could fill out the pen.  Sometimes what you have is better than the shiny toys somewhere else. 

If we have Graterol, do the Twins make the playoffs in 2020? We certainly don't win the division then. Maeda was the second best pitcher in the AL in 2020 and that was only because Bieber was incredible. Pressly hurts, because although Celestino and Alcala are both MLB pieces, I think we gave up 1.5 seasons of control of Pressly. Jury is still out on that one. 

[DJL44]

Relief pitching is more important now but individual relievers are pitching even less. Rogers would throw around 60 innings this season if he stays healthy. He was great in 2019 but so was Pagan

[tony&rodney]

The trade, $6.6 million, Rogers, and Rooker for Paddack and Pagan is purely for next year. The mantra that the Twins aren't going to be good this year started real early and the be realistic idea to look to next year and the two years beyond next are the base of many opinions. I cannot see this line of thinking, but others do. So it goes. 

How early do the ideas for summer trades come now? Sanchez, Sano, Polanco, Correa, Kepler, Urshela, Gray, Archer, Bundy, Duffey, and Thielbar sound like they could bring back some decent prospects for next year. We might have a top ten farm system after moving those guys.

The one positive possibility is that the addition of these two pitchers allows the Twins to trade a handful of guys for Bryan Reynolds due to the growing glut in their system.

 

[ashbury]

3 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

Sanchez, Sano, Polanco, Correa, Kepler, Urshela, Gray, Archer, Bundy, Duffey, and Thielbar sound like they could bring back some decent prospects for next year.

If those 11 guys are bringing back significant prospects in trade, won't it mean they are performing well enough to entice a contender, and that kind of performance should indicate we're in a pennant chase?

[tony&rodney]

1 hour ago, ashbury said:

If those 11 guys are bringing back significant prospects in trade, won't it mean they are performing well enough to entice a contender, and that kind of performance should indicate we're in a pennant chase?

Well, we hope so ... but what if the returns look so enticing?

[Platoon]

Someone will dig up the stats on this but IIRC didn’t Rogers struggle on back to back appearances? If so, this diminishes his value as a closer. 

[mikelink45]

3 hours ago, dex8425 said:

I hear what you're saying, but if Paddack had pitched well last year then he would've cost the Twins Lewis, Balazovic, and Rogers. He would then be Frankie Montas, basically. EDIT: and I would not hope the Twins would trade Rogers, Balazovic and Lewis for Montas. 

If he was Montas this would be a different conversation

 

[mikelink45]

3 hours ago, dex8425 said:

If we have Graterol, do the Twins make the playoffs in 2020? We certainly don't win the division then. Maeda was the second best pitcher in the AL in 2020 and that was only because Bieber was incredible. Pressly hurts, because although Celestino and Alcala are both MLB pieces, I think we gave up 1.5 seasons of control of Pressly. Jury is still out on that one. 

making the playoffs is not a really high standard

 

[Stew]

Heiny has a great take on this. We need inning eaters. Name me one season in the last 25 years were we didn't use at least 7 or 8 starters. We are not sure about Archer and bundy's return to form . And no one can tell about the young arms. I liked Rodgers too. But the padres have 7 possible starts. And now they improve their bullpen.

[The Mad King]

I thought they could hang onto him, see how the season goes, and get a higher return at the trade deadline. 

Or maybe reinjures his finger and we get nothing...

[dxpavelka]

"The self-anointed “competitive” Twins roster just got a huge downgrade in their bullpen on paper no matter how you shake it."  The games aren't played on paper.  They're played on my television.

[USAFChief]

A team serious about competing in 2022 doesn't trade Rogers.

[Wizard11]

It will be interesting to see who the PTBNL is.  The structure of this trade suggests to me that it won’t be a throw-in.  The $6.6MM added had to be about something more the average low A ball lottery ticket.  

[dgdynasty]

IMO At least we won't lose yet another playoff game to extend the streak. Please prove me wrong by 1)making the playoffs and 2)winning a playoff game without a single proven, solid BP pitcher. Hate this trade if we think we are competing, love it if we are true to the fact we really are not

[Major League Ready]

4 hours ago, dgdynasty said:

IMO At least we won't lose yet another playoff game to extend the streak. Please prove me wrong by 1)making the playoffs and 2)winning a playoff game without a single proven, solid BP pitcher. Hate this trade if we think we are competing, love it if we are true to the fact we really are not

Their actions have been clear since the trade deadline last year.  They are focused on long-term success built around homegrown pitching or moves like trading 1 year of a RP (Rodgers) for 3 years of a SP.  This should not be surprising given this is what the strategy Cleveland employed with great success. Adding Correa was not about going for it this year.  There is an alternative of putting a good product on the field while building a contender.  Correa is almost certainly gone next year but he will bring great prospects when they trade him at the deadline.  (Two birds / one stone)  The off-season resulted in adding Buxton for the next seven years, Paddack for 3 and Pagen for 2.  They also shed Donaldson's 21.75M in 2023 and $16M in 2024 or the $8M buyout in 2024.  This money can now be used on long-terms assets instead of a player highly likely to decline not to mention we have Miranda ready to replace him.  So, the comparison is Donaldson vs Miranda (next year) plus $21.75M spent elsewhere. Of course, they also picked up a couple prospects.  This team simply was not positioned to contend and I didn't ever get the impression they were going to attempt to build a true contender this year.  That would have been incompetent.

We need a couple of the prospects to step up this year but the outlook for 23 and beyond improved greatly this off-season.  

[Whitey333]

It's an interesting trade.  I didn't want to see Rogers go.  I think that on paper it weakens the bullpen.  But we have some good pitchers there.  I find it interesting that some people that justified trading Rogers was due to relievers being so unpredictable.  Doesn't the same theory hold true with the people currently in the pen?  I thought one of the most intriguing aspects was the Twins including $ 6.6 million to San Diego in the deal.  That's a lot of money and something the Twins don't do very often.  For the Padres it makes the trade a financial bargain as the players will only cost them a little more than major league minimum as they are trying to keep under the $230 million luxury tax threshold.  Although I like Rogers, I think in the long run the Twins will benefit.