Checking back in with a former standout Twins reliever

[Jack Griffin]

2 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Explain to me how the Twins "free up future money to sign other players."

 

They didn't free up any money. Rogers wasn't signed past this year. If they did ANYTHING money wise, they limited their options now since they operate on a budget and theyre currently paying Paddack, Pagan, AND Rogers.

In fact, they'll spend 2023 money on Paddack without having any idea if he'll pitch well, or at all. Keeping Pagan will cost as well, if they so choose. If they keep Rogers they're not obligated to pay ANY of those three in 2023.

This simply wasn't a trade a team serious about contending makes. Ill conceived. You can't take the best piece out of your bullpen. 

"Saving money" not only didn't happen, it actually cost them money. 

It cost them money for THIS season. 

Pagan is due 2.3 Mil this year, I'd Imagine next year that's not gonna go up much in his last year of arb. Based on his results this season, lets say 3 mil will be the settling point.

Paddack is due 2.25 Mil this year, due to the injuries I'd also imagine there wont be a huge raise in his 2023 number. Lets also just say 3 for him.

Keeping Rogers past this season would more than likely cost the Twins more than both of them combined next season. Not signing him to an extension is where the "future" money comes from.

The Twins had a weakness in the rotation. They viewed Paddack as an upgrade to it, and Pagan as similar enough in value to Rogers. Obviously, that didn't work the way as planned, that's where the "in theory" part of this trade comes from.

Holding Paddack's injury against the Twins as if they knew he was gonna tear his UCL is not a fair critique.

[USAFChief]

23 minutes ago, Jack Griffin said:

It cost them money for THIS season. 

Pagan is due 2.3 Mil this year, I'd Imagine next year that's not gonna go up much in his last year of arb. Based on his results this season, lets say 3 mil will be the settling point.

Paddack is due 2.25 Mil this year, due to the injuries I'd also imagine there wont be a huge raise in his 2023 number. Lets also just say 3 for him.

Keeping Rogers past this season would more than likely cost the Twins more than both of them combined next season. Not signing him to an extension is where the "future" money comes from.

The Twins had a weakness in the rotation. They viewed Paddack as an upgrade to it, and Pagan as similar enough in value to Rogers. Obviously, that didn't work the way as planned, that's where the "in theory" part of this trade comes from.

Holding Paddack's injury against the Twins as if they knew he was gonna tear his UCL is not a fair critique.

Rogers wasn't signed past 2022 and didn't need to be. The Twins didn't "free up money" as you claimed. They freed up nothing for the future, and even tied up money this season. Rogers is the same free agent this winter no matter the trade.

And the Paddack injury was bad luck...and a bad gamble. His elbow issues weren't unknown. The Mets turned down a trade earlier in the spring because of that very issue. And it seems likely San Diego made him available at least in part due to concern over his elbow. 

Which is all just additional reasons not to trade. The primary being it was stupid to reduce an already weak and thin pen if you planned on contending. 

 

[Jack Griffin]

27 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Rogers wasn't signed past 2022 and didn't need to be. The Twins didn't "free up money" as you claimed. They freed up nothing for the future, and even tied up money this season. Rogers is the same free agent this winter no matter the trade.

And the Paddack injury was bad luck...and a bad gamble. His elbow issues weren't unknown. The Mets turned down a trade earlier in the spring because of that very issue. And it seems likely San Diego made him available at least in part due to concern over his elbow. 

Which is all just additional reasons not to trade. The primary being it was stupid to reduce an already weak and thin pen if you planned on contending. 

 

So in your mind, the same front office that signed Carlos Correa to a contract did so with the assumption they wouldn't be contending?

49 minutes ago, Jack Griffin said:

The Twins had a weakness in the rotation. They viewed Paddack as an upgrade to it, and Pagan as similar enough in value to Rogers. Obviously, that didn't work the way as planned, that's where the "in theory" part of this trade comes from.

The Twins made this from a point of being a contender, bolstering a weak rotation and losing little value, in their eyes, bullpen wise. They didn't have the idea of "we are reducing the bullpen" they got rid of a reliever and replaced him with another. Now that Pagan has struggled you can view it a different way, but nothing else they've done has scream "we aren't contending". They just traded away their last 1st round pick for immediate MLB help, that's not something rebuilding teams do.

[USAFChief]

1 minute ago, Jack Griffin said:

So in your mind, the same front office that signed Carlos Correa to a contract did so with the assumption they wouldn't be contending?

The Twins made this from a point of being a contender, bolstering a weak rotation and losing little value, in their eyes, bullpen wise. They didn't have the idea of "we are reducing the bullpen" they got rid of a reliever and replaced him with another. Now that Pagan has struggled you can view it a different way, but nothing else they've done has scream "we aren't contending". They just traded away their last 1st round pick for immediate MLB help, that's not something rebuilding teams do.

I don't know how to make this clearer...as I stated at the time of the trade, a team serious about contending doesn't make this trade. Clearly, they don't sign Correa and trade for Gray if they aren't planning on contending. 

So it was a CLEAR mistake to then turn around and on the eve of opening day trade your best bullpen piece. Particularly when their PLAN for starting pitching was to limit their exposure. They PLANNED on 3, 4 or 5 relievers pretty much every night. 

With that, I'm out. The trade was poorly conceived, poorly executed, and surprise surprise, the results speak for themselves. We're here hanging on for dear life with a weak and thin pen, starters who can't go past 5 or 6 IP at best, Pagan a train wreck and Paddack rehabbing. They'll need to spend significant prospect capital to have any chance at bolstering the pitching, if they even can. 

Moronic trade. No amount of lipstick can change the look of this pig.

[terrydactyls]

On 7/12/2022 at 1:45 PM, Jack Griffin said:

I'd tend to agree, but those are 2 separate points that get crunched into 1 too often. A lot of fans seem to think this bullpen would be perfectly fine if they didn't make the trade, which frankly, is not true

Exactamundo, my friend.  It's the favorite fallback position for people who like to rant but not offer anything constructive to a discussion.  And the Presley trade still gets some negativity even though it took place (I think) sometime in the late 1800's when it was still legal to throw out a runner by hitting him with the baseball. 

[terrydactyls]

4 hours ago, USAFChief said:

I don't know how to make this clearer...as I stated at the time of the trade, a team serious about contending doesn't make this trade. Clearly, they don't sign Correa and trade for Gray if they aren't planning on contending. 

So it was a CLEAR mistake to then turn around and on the eve of opening day trade your best bullpen piece. Particularly when their PLAN for starting pitching was to limit their exposure. They PLANNED on 3, 4 or 5 relievers pretty much every night. 

With that, I'm out. The trade was poorly conceived, poorly executed, and surprise surprise, the results speak for themselves. We're here hanging on for dear life with a weak and thin pen, starters who can't go past 5 or 6 IP at best, Pagan a train wreck and Paddack rehabbing. They'll need to spend significant prospect capital to have any chance at bolstering the pitching, if they even can. 

Moronic trade. No amount of lipstick can change the look of this pig.

So to summarize your position:  I'm right and anyone who has another opinion is a moron.  Must be nice up there atop Mount Olympus.

[Stew]

Everyone should have seen this coming. Rodgers was dominant before his injury. And I would have bet anything on these results. I've said for 2years not to trade Rodgers or garver. I guess garver trades a little bit of a wash but Rodgers hurt bad.

 

[ashbury]

4 hours ago, terrydactyls said:

So to summarize your position:  I'm right and anyone who has another opinion is a moron. 

So if Chief had called the trade "brilliant", would that make anyone who has another opinion brilliant?

This thread would be easier to read if folks stopped mis-characterizing others' posts.  Chief described the trade, not a person.  Don't take it personally.

[terrydactyls]

15 minutes ago, ashbury said:

So if Chief had called the trade "brilliant", would that make anyone who has another opinion brilliant?

This thread would be easier to read if folks stopped mis-characterizing others' posts.  Chief described the trade, not a person.  Don't take it personally.

I didn't take anything personal.  I just commented that his proclamation was rather heavy-handed towards anyone with a view other than his.

[Riverbrian]

1. I'm going to assume that the Twins medical staff looked over the Paddack medicals.

Players get hurt, there was no guarantee at the time of the trade that Rogers stays healthy either. 

2. Just because Rogers was traded, it doesn't mean that his roster spot has to be filled with crap. It isn't an either or proposition. There are talent levels between 0 and 100. 

3. The current Rogers would only add to our current bullpen problem. 

4. We are about to enter the all-star break. The team is in contention. We know what our most pressing problem is. The front office gets to make deals now.

5. They better. 

[jorgenswest]

The Padres are 31-5 in games that Rogers has appeared including 3-1 in his 4 bad July games where his ERA went from 2.84 to 4.04.

In those 4 games where he has given up 6 runs in 4 innings his ERA is 13.50 and his FIP is 1.86. In those 4 games he has given up 0 walks and 0 home runs with 4 strike outs throwing 67% strikes.

If the Twins could manage to find a reliever that can go 4 games without giving up a home run or walk I hope our defense would do a better job of managing balls in play than the .588 BABIP the Padres have given up in those 4 games. He did give up 10 hits and 4 were described as balls to the deep OF. The others were ground balls or balls to the short OF.

Does that context change anyone’s thought about the turn in Rogers’ season? Perhaps it could have been added to the original post for consideration.

[Loosey]

On 7/12/2022 at 1:26 PM, Squirrel said:

Well ... I'd agree with that, too ... but then it just falls back to the FO for not doing enough to shore up the BP before the trade and then made it even worse

In theory the Twins did replace Rogers adequately with Duran.  However, it elevated other's roles which should have been improved through other methods.  Also, the injury to Alcala probably hurts them, even if Pagan was supposed to be a bridge to Duran closing having Alcala as setup and Duran to close would have been a very nice back end and push Pagan to 7th inning guy.  Instead Pagan is struggling and still being used as setup / closer for inexplicable reasons the rest of the pen has done poorly.

[Trov]

33 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

The Padres are 31-5 in games that Rogers has appeared including 3-1 in his 4 bad July games where his ERA went from 2.84 to 4.04.

In those 4 games where he has given up 6 runs in 4 innings his ERA is 13.50 and his FIP is 1.86. In those 4 games he has given up 0 walks and 0 home runs with 4 strike outs throwing 67% strikes.

If the Twins could manage to find a reliever that can go 4 games without giving up a home run or walk I hope our defense would do a better job of managing balls in play than the .588 BABIP the Padres have given up in those 4 games. He did give up 10 hits and 4 were described as balls to the deep OF. The others were ground balls or balls to the short OF.

Does that context change anyone’s thought about the turn in Rogers’ season? Perhaps it could have been added to the original post for consideration.

I did add the results of the wins and losses earlier.  In games Pagan pitched we are 21-11 with him getting the win in 3 and loss in 3.  Rodgers got loss in 4 of his.  Not all the losses are on Pagan, he had terrible run where several were, but some he did his job and others did not, because does not always come in in 9th with lead. 

I am not saying Pagan is doing well at all, because he is not, but there is no reason to think if we had Rodgers over him much else would be different because Rodgers would have similar stretches with the Twins.  The fact that during his poor run in July the team is still getting wins just shows he was in games where team had large leads.  Like giving up 2 runs but getting a save.  Was it a good outing or bad?  He got the save but gave up 2 runs, so job done because as long as he did not give up 3 he did his job.  

Personally, I do not care how he is giving up runs.  I could care less if he is giving up HR and not walking guys if he is giving up runs they all count the same.  You argue he is getting "unlucky" because his defense is not making plays, but where the balls hit in areas someone could make the play?  I did not see them so I do not know.  I find it crazy that just because a pitcher did not give up a HR but gave up a hit it was luck by the hitter.  For all we know the deep fly balls were high off the wall and just missed HR by inches, is that luck by hitter or pitcher?  What if one of those deep flies would have been a HR in just about every other park and would have resulted in BS, is that luck by hitter or pitcher?  Maybe the short ground balls to OF were worm burners, or maybe the hitter saw a hole and drove it through it hitting right where he wanted, is that luck?  

Without seeing each hit and PA it is hard to say Rodgers is getting unlucky.  Maybe he is, but the fact is he is giving up runs right now.  The last 3 years his ERA has been more than 1 point higher than his FIP, is that 3 years of bad luck?  You do not have 3 years of bad luck, you just have someone that they give up hits that are not HR.  Rodgers clearly is an outlier of the ERA to FIP situation, or you can just say he is always unluck that his defenses do not know where to stand. 

[USAFChief]

2 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

1. I'm going to assume that the Twins medical staff looked over the Paddack medicals.

Players get hurt, there was no guarantee at the time of the trade that Rogers stays healthy either. 

2. Just because Rogers was traded, it doesn't mean that his roster spot has to be filled with crap. It isn't an either or proposition. There are talent levels between 0 and 100. 

3. The current Rogers would only add to our current bullpen problem. 

4. We are about to enter the all-star break. The team is in contention. We know what our most pressing problem is. The front office gets to make deals now.

5. They better. 

1. Fair. But trading for Paddack was clearly a bigger health gamble than normal. Big enough that at least one other team declined to trade for him this spring, if we believe reports on the matter.

2. True. But relievers the talent level of Rogers don't grow on trees. In any case the Twins DIDN'T add talent, they only subtracted. Add to that timing...it's tough to add talent the day before the season starts and almost impossible once opening day arrives until midseason.

3. Disagree. Id be thrilled to still have Rogers. Good pitchers sometimes give up runs. That doesn't mean they're no longer good. You have to throw the ball over the plate, this isnt the NFL where you can run out the clock with a lead. MLB hitters will sometimes hit. Josh Hader has given up runs in (I believe) 4 consecutive outings as of yesterday.  Would having Hader also add to our bullpen problems?

4. True enough. And they'd still need help had they not traded Rogers. That doesn't excuse the trade, it just makes it worse.

5. Concur. I also hope they start treating the bullpen with the respect and effort it deserves in future offseasons. 

[jorgenswest]

38 minutes ago, Trov said:

The last 3 years his ERA has been more than 1 point higher than his FIP, is that 3 years of bad luck?  You do not have 3 years of bad luck, you just have someone that they give up hits that are not HR.  Rodgers clearly is an outlier of the ERA to FIP situation, or you can just say he is always unluck that his defenses do not know where to stand. 

There is a lot to parse here. FIP and ERA “converge” somewhere past 500 innings. That is a career for a reliever and given the changes that happen over a career it isn’t really helpful. Should it be surprising that over the course of 100 innings (Rogers last three seasons) a relievers FIP and ERA are far apart? I don’t believe so. Which should be trusted more looking forward? I think the research says FIP is a better predictor.

In Rogers case his walk rate is low, his strike out rate is strong and he isn’t giving up home runs. I want that reliever on my team in late innings. 

[bean5302]

Taylor Rogers has definitely been knocked around a lot over the past 5 games. That doesn't really change much in regard to how Rogers ranks as one of the best relievers in baseball over the past several years.

As of 6/24, 5 appearances ago?
ERA 2.70
FIP 2.48
xFIP 3.24
K% 29.3
BB% 6.0
EV 88.9
Barrel 8.6%

It must have been really gratifying for Rogers to finally slump after waiting all year for it to happen so this could be written up.

[In My La Z boy]

34 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

1. Fair. But trading for Paddack was clearly a bigger health gamble than normal. Big enough that at least one other team declined to trade for him this spring, if we believe reports on the matter.

2. True. But relievers the talent level of Rogers don't grow on trees. In any case the Twins DIDN'T add talent, they only subtracted. Add to that timing...it's tough to add talent the day before the season starts and almost impossible once opening day arrives until midseason.

3. Disagree. Id be thrilled to still have Rogers. Good pitchers sometimes give up runs. That doesn't mean they're no longer good. You have to throw the ball over the plate, this isnt the NFL where you can run out the clock with a lead. MLB hitters will sometimes hit. Josh Hader has given up runs in (I believe) 4 consecutive outings as of yesterday.  Would having Hader also add to our bullpen problems?

4. True enough. And they'd still need help had they not traded Rogers. That doesn't excuse the trade, it just makes it worse.

5. Concur. I also hope they start treating the bullpen with the respect and effort it deserves in future offseasons. 

I agree with you on every post in this thread and could not add one thing.

[In My La Z boy]

On 7/13/2022 at 9:38 AM, Jack Griffin said:

They are paying for his last year of arbitration to get a more controllable return, that's your chief complaint?

See every USAFChief post in this thread

[nicksaviking]

20 hours ago, Jack Griffin said:

So in your mind, the same front office that signed Carlos Correa to a contract did so with the assumption they wouldn't be contending?

The Twins made this from a point of being a contender, bolstering a weak rotation and losing little value, in their eyes, bullpen wise. They didn't have the idea of "we are reducing the bullpen" they got rid of a reliever and replaced him with another. Now that Pagan has struggled you can view it a different way, but nothing else they've done has scream "we aren't contending". They just traded away their last 1st round pick for immediate MLB help, that's not something rebuilding teams do.

I am not critical of the trade, and yes, I think the front office thought they were a year away from contending. Signing Correa was obligatory because they'd have been eaten alive if they'd gone into the season with only a 100M payroll. They signed one big free agent as opposed to the typical half dozen boring free agents because they had fewer holes to fill due to the fact that they wanted to start giving the young guys roster spots.

But I don't think you go into a season with the intention of giving inexperienced players half of the roster spots AND the the intention of actually contending. I think the team's success was a happy surprise. It was to me anyway.

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

1. Fair. But trading for Paddack was clearly a bigger health gamble than normal. Big enough that at least one other team declined to trade for him this spring, if we believe reports on the matter.

2. True. But relievers the talent level of Rogers don't grow on trees. In any case the Twins DIDN'T add talent, they only subtracted. Add to that timing...it's tough to add talent the day before the season starts and almost impossible once opening day arrives until midseason.

3. Disagree. Id be thrilled to still have Rogers. Good pitchers sometimes give up runs. That doesn't mean they're no longer good. You have to throw the ball over the plate, this isnt the NFL where you can run out the clock with a lead. MLB hitters will sometimes hit. Josh Hader has given up runs in (I believe) 4 consecutive outings as of yesterday.  Would having Hader also add to our bullpen problems?

4. True enough. And they'd still need help had they not traded Rogers. That doesn't excuse the trade, it just makes it worse.

5. Concur. I also hope they start treating the bullpen with the respect and effort it deserves in future offseasons. 

1. 1 team didn't trade for Brusdar Graterol because they didn't like his medicals, does that make the Dodgers dumb for trading Maeda for him? If I'm remembering correctly Maeda is the one who ended up getting TJ surgery.

2. Paddack wasn't a talent improvement over any starter they had? They didn't add bullpen talent, but they added talent to another area of the roster. Which is generally how trades work. Not many trades of relievers for better relievers available out there. Paddack had starts of 5, 5.2, and 5.1 innings before he got hurt. Allowed 2, 1, and 1 runs in those innings. You're on here constantly complaining about starters not going deep into games and he made it into the 6th in 2 of his 4 injury free games. Weird that you don't think that's an improvement over the guys you're currently complaining about not doing that.

3. Agreed here. Rogers is still a good pitcher and would help the bullpen overall. But, to @Riverbrian's point, the way Rogers is currently performing wouldn't be helping the current struggles of the Twins bullpen.

4. If they hadn't traded Rogers and Alcala had stayed healthy they'd have Rogers, Duran, Jax, and Alcala as their top 4 relievers. I mean if we're playing the "what-if" game let's look at what the ideal situation would've been for now. That top 4 would most certainly be a playoff worthy top 4.

5. What does "treating the bullpen with respect" look like? Give me your top 5 bullpens in baseball right now and let me know how those teams treated their bullpen "with respect" that the Twins haven't.

[Finlander]

The deal made sense when considering where you want to be on the return-on-investment and controllability curves. With a trade that close to season start, the Twins must have seen some things on their pitching staff during the spring that prompted their decision. Maybe concerns about Rogers' health. Maybe the emergence of Duran. I wish they would have included a better sweetener and shot for a Musgrove or a Manaea instead of Paddock, as SD was loaded with starting pitching.

We lost our pitching coach mid-season. Who woulda thunk?! I don't think the timing of the recent bullpen implosions are a coincidence.

I guess the lack of lefties on the Twins staff is concerning when looking at opposing lefty hitters in potential playoff matchups. Go get Soto plus a high K% rightie and we'll be fine. Deal some prospects. Hope that some of our injured pitchers can come back and contribute for the stretch run. 

[chpettit19]

42 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I am not critical of the trade, and yes, I think the front office thought they were a year away from contending. Signing Correa was obligatory because they'd have been eaten alive if they'd gone into the season with only a 100M payroll. They signed one big free agent as opposed to the typical half dozen boring free agents because they had fewer holes to fill due to the fact that they wanted to start giving the young guys roster spots.

But I don't think you go into a season with the intention of giving inexperienced players half of the roster spots AND the the intention of actually contending. I think the team's success was a happy surprise. It was to me anyway.

Inexperienced guys on opening day roster: Celestino, Duran, Winder, Romero
Middle ground guys: Jeffers. Kirilloff, Gordon, Ober, Ryan
Not Inexperienced guys: Sanchez, Sano, Polanco, Urshella, Arraez, Correa, Buxton, Kepler, Gray, Bundy, Archer, Paddack, Duffey, Alcala, Pagan, Smith, Thielbar, Cotton, Coulmbe

Certainly not half the roster of inexperienced players. I'd actually put the middle ground guys in the "not inexperienced" group, but there could be arguments there. Duran was a low leverage guy meant to build his way up to high leverage innings to start the year. Winder was a long reliever. Romero was at the bottom of the pen pecking order. Celestino was the 5th OFer.

I'd argue the plan for the inexperienced guys was to get their feet wet and have the chance to take jobs as the year went along. Like what Miranda has done. There were 19 guys on the roster that there's no argument that they're inexperienced. Including 8 of the 9 position player starters on opening day (Jeffers being the 9th, but he'd spent part of 2 seasons in the bigs already so to me he's not inexperienced).

Nick Gordon at 70 games played this year is the highest guy on the possibly inexperienced side of things, but he'd played 73 games last year. Otherwise it's Arraez, Urshela, Kepler, Polanco, (Gordon), Buxton, Sanchez, Correa leading the way in games played. Sano injury changed things drastically. Buxton and Correa missing chunks of games changed things. I don't think they were planning on relying on young/inexperienced guys this much.

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

1. Fair. But trading for Paddack was clearly a bigger health gamble than normal. Big enough that at least one other team declined to trade for him this spring, if we believe reports on the matter.

2. True. But relievers the talent level of Rogers don't grow on trees. In any case the Twins DIDN'T add talent, they only subtracted. Add to that timing...it's tough to add talent the day before the season starts and almost impossible once opening day arrives until midseason.

3. Disagree. Id be thrilled to still have Rogers. Good pitchers sometimes give up runs. That doesn't mean they're no longer good. You have to throw the ball over the plate, this isnt the NFL where you can run out the clock with a lead. MLB hitters will sometimes hit. Josh Hader has given up runs in (I believe) 4 consecutive outings as of yesterday.  Would having Hader also add to our bullpen problems?

4. True enough. And they'd still need help had they not traded Rogers. That doesn't excuse the trade, it just makes it worse.

5. Concur. I also hope they start treating the bullpen with the respect and effort it deserves in future offseasons. 

1. When it comes to pitching... Health is always a gamble. Pitchers go down left and right.  

I can be as guilty as the next guy, reading something and absorbing it but I do try my best to not read something (Mets - Paddack Medical Article) and concluding that the Twins ignored a problem because a Mets writer wrote something from the Mets perspective.  

The only thing that I would ever dare to assume is that the Twins did due diligence. Too much at stake to ignore information. 

2. I agree... I don't personally believe that they Twins were bullpen serious enough before or after the Rogers trade but I do have the benefit of hindsight.

I believe that is possible that the Twins knew that they were lessening the bullpen by trading Rogers but at the same time felt that the options they had could get the job done. There is a difference between lessening and tanking the bullpen.

You also have to factor in that extra starting pitchers (Paddack) decreases the usage necessary for guys who can only throw 1 inning. I think it is possible that the Twins front office considered that before pulling the trigger on the trade. 

3. I agree... I'd love to have Rogers in this bullpen but if he struggles like he has been struggling, he is adding to the big pile of our current problem. Now if we try to trade him at the deadline... He does not fetch a Paddack level talent in return. The Twins had the opportunity to pick up a decent starter with multiple years of control for 1 year of a reliever... I continue to believe that nearly every team makes that deal. 

4. That is really the crux of it... It's one more guy that they need to acquire at the trade deadline. Rogers by himself doesn't fix our pen problems. Trading Rogers doesn't cripple your bullpen... Bad Pitchers are what cripple your bullpen. Replacing the Rogers roster spot can be done with someone decent yet not quite as good as Rogers. The Twins didn't get to the someone decent level and it wasn't just the Rogers roster spot. 

5. You and I completely agree on this. I wait for them to get bullpen serious. 

[In My La Z boy]

Hard to believe they make the deal without checking with our bench coach (his former mgr). I think we could have gotten better advice, he was on the injured list late last year. This was not a Maeda/Graterol situation. Somehow the Mets knew Paddock wasn't the guy.

Falvey hasn't taken the bullpen seriously since his Addison Reed signing blew up in his face. First season on the job, and his big bullpen signing was a mistake. He won't do that again apparently. Do we not have any arms we could bring up for a bullpen shot? Let's see Povich in the pen. 

[Trov]

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

Taylor Rogers has definitely been knocked around a lot over the past 5 games. That doesn't really change much in regard to how Rogers ranks as one of the best relievers in baseball over the past several years.

As of 6/24, 5 appearances ago?
ERA 2.70
FIP 2.48
xFIP 3.24
K% 29.3
BB% 6.0
EV 88.9
Barrel 8.6%

It must have been really gratifying for Rogers to finally slump after waiting all year for it to happen so this could be written up.

It is actually his second stretch of poor games.  He had three in a row at end of May beginning of June where he blew 2 saves and picked up 3 losses giving up 8 runs, 7 earned, in 1.2 innings.  If you go back to that run of games he has pitched 15.1 innings in 16 games.  7 saves with 4 blown saves, 15 ER 16 total runs, 18K 3BB with 4HBP(not sure if HBP are factored into FIP but they should) 1HR.  

Prior to his first run of bad games, he gave up 1 Run in 21 innings in 20 games having 17 saves in 17 chances.  22K 4BB and 3HBP and 0 HR.  Just like any pen arm you can look at the whole, or in parts.  

Tyler Duffy similar had about the same amount of bad games, 8 games where he gave up a run.  Rodgers has given up runs in 11 games.  Duffy has pitched 37 inning in 33 games, and Rodgers has pitched 35.2 innings in 36 games.  Duffy lower K rate with about 9 per 9, Rodgers is at 10.3 per 9.  Duffy has walked 2.7 per 9, Rodgers 1.8, but Rodgers has hit 7, Duffy has hit none, so the amount of free runners Rodgers has allowed more than Duffy, with 14 in less innings than Duffy.  Rodgers may not walk too many, but he hits as many as he walks.  The big difference is Duffy has allowed 6 HR, Rodgers just 1. 

My point is, they are very similar in numbers other than the HR, but just about everyone has lost faith in Duffy, but many of those same people would love to have Rodgers back like he would be the savior.  Right now baseball reference has Duffy with a 0.1 WAR and Rodgers as a -0.1 WAR.  However, if you look at the WPA Rodgers is at 0.3 and Duffy is -0.3.  On thing to also remember, with Rodgers, any loses he takes on the road, most likely he stopped pitching because game was over due to walk off, and his numbers could have been worse, where Duffy either finishes inning or gets pulled as he rarely has been asked to finish games. 

My main point is Rodgers since end of May has been ehhh but some people on here act like his is the best closer in baseball.  Would he be better than some in our pen, yes, is he better than what Pagan has done, hell yes, but he is not lights out all the time. 

[nicksaviking]

57 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Inexperienced guys on opening day roster: Celestino, Duran, Winder, Romero
Middle ground guys: Jeffers. Kirilloff, Gordon, Ober, Ryan
Not Inexperienced guys: Sanchez, Sano, Polanco, Urshella, Arraez, Correa, Buxton, Kepler, Gray, Bundy, Archer, Paddack, Duffey, Alcala, Pagan, Smith, Thielbar, Cotton, Coulmbe

 

Kirilloff, Gordon, Ober and Ryan are extremely inexperienced. The team was also leaning on Larnach, Miranda and Lewis as the next men up. I mean you can nitpick about my use of 'half the roster' but championship teams don't typically have this many wet behind the ears players, particularly this many we behind the ears players in key spots.

[chpettit19]

20 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Kirilloff, Gordon, Ober and Ryan are extremely inexperienced. The team was also leaning on Larnach, Miranda and Lewis as the next men up. I mean you can nitpick about my use of 'half the roster' but championship teams don't typically have this many wet behind the ears players, particularly this many we behind the ears players in key spots.

Most teams lean on Larnach, Miranda and Lewis type top prospects as next men up. It's actually how most contenders break their top prospects into the bigs. Gordon was the 26th man on the roster. Kirilloff was a top prospect who'd been deemed ready enough to start a playoff game 2 years ago. Ober had nearly a full season in the bigs last year. I'm not saying they're veterans by any means, but they're quite comparable to players that make contender's rosters. What key spots? Ryan as opening day starter, yes. Gordon was the utility guy coming into the year. Ober started game 3 so kind of key, but as you'll see in my next paragraph the Dodgers had a guy in their rotation with about 40 more career innings than Ober and started game 2 of the season for them. Kirilloff hit 6 hole opening day so I guess he's kind of key if you want to make that stretch. Celestino, Duran, Winder, and Romero were not in key roles at all. I'm just not buying it.

Dodgers Opening day roster included Tony Gonsolin and his fewer than 150 career big league innings. Gavin Lux and his 30 games more than Gordon last year. Edwin Rios and his 85 career games before this year. Justin Bruihl and his 18.2 major league innings before this season. Garrett Cleavinger and his 18.2 major league innings before this season. Evan Phillips and his 67.1 career major league innings before this season. Alex Vesia and his 44.1 career major league innings coming into this season. Mitch White and his 49.2 career major league innings. Shoot, our old friend Brusdar only had 66.1 innings coming into this season. I mean you'd be hard pressed to find a fan who'd even heard of Bruihl, Cleavinger, Phillips, White, or Vesia coming into this season. That's 9 guys that weren't exactly super experienced vets on the odds on World Series favorites coming into the year. That's the exact same number you say the Twins had.

[Otaknam]

As others have pointed out Rogers isn’t a lefty !Mariano Rivera. But if he was closing for the Twins this year, instead of Pagan and company,  they’d likely have at least four more wins given how many leads the BP blew over the past six weeks. 

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, In My La Z boy said:

Hard to believe they make the deal without checking with our bench coach (his former mgr). I think we could have gotten better advice, he was on the injured list late last year. This was not a Maeda/Graterol situation. Somehow the Mets knew Paddock wasn't the guy.

Falvey hasn't taken the bullpen seriously since his Addison Reed signing blew up in his face. First season on the job, and his big bullpen signing was a mistake. He won't do that again apparently. Do we not have any arms we could bring up for a bullpen shot? Let's see Povich in the pen. 

Rogers was on the injured list late last year...

[ashbury]

3 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

I am not critical of the trade, and yes, I think the front office thought they were a year away from contending.

Not being prepared, for failure, is something I can maybe figure out a way of forgiving.  You can't plan for every contingency.

Not being prepared, for success?  If they can't pivot from whatever Plan A has been, while opportunity is still there before the trading deadline, I just don't know what to say of this as any kind of excuse.  A pivot doesn't mean draining the farm system totally.  Just embracing opportunity, and redeploying resources.

Running a baseball team involves a whole lot more "known unknowns" than most businesses.  But imagine some kind of normal business, somewhere near the cutting edge technologically, so that planning has to be always a bit provisionally.  R&D has informed Marketing of a major core product release coming in 2023; Marketing has done some groundwork and has prepared Sales for next year.  Suddenly Marketing is informed by R&D, "we've figured it out!  We've harnessed Cold Fusion!  We've squared the circle!  We can go into production TOMORROW.  Though, our competition may figure things out pretty soon too."  If Marketing can't quickly pivot, a lot of business is going to be forfeited.