Why You Shouldn't Be Mad About "Losing Out" On [Insert Top Reliever Here]

Great article.. checking he FA reliever list takes a while and there are MANY good options.... overspending is NOT needed. If one of the top arms agrees to below market... fine otherwise wait and will get 80/90 percent of the production for a cost much less from a similar arm... 

So back to the dollar store. What a relief - it's worked so out well year after year with all of the World Series trophies piling up in Minneapolis.

I thought this was an excellent article, but then I wondered - what would you have written if in fact the Twins had signed Hendriks and Hand?  The slant and take might have been quite different, like the way we justify over paying for Donaldson who we expected would not be worth his final year salary.  Baseball has a very strange system for signing veterans who might be sliding down from their peak - like Kimbrel?

Agree with ashbury, even if the article is nicely done.

We are Twins fans and Smeltzer, Thorpe, and whoever may be the team's solution.

Relief pitching is funky and results come in all shapes - sign Kinzler.

It's weird to have faith in the Twins front office for the first time in my life, but I'd definitely rather they develop some guys they think they can work with rather than spend on a reliever. Or maybe I'm just still scared of a Matt Capps kind of situation

I am supportive of the Twins, but have never understood the hype for the current front office, nor do I get the vitriol that has been spewed on an excellent baseball man, Terry Ryan. The decisions are largely financial and we mostly accept that concept.

The Twins have not competed in either the World Series or the series to get into the World Series for a long time. There are multiple factors that can account for the drought. Perhaps signing an established relief pitcher would help. Claiming Hand seemed to be one opportunity. The risk was not outlandish. He is now likely to get multiple years at the claiming price. 

Looking at the options remaining, Rosenthal seems like a solid choice to sign.

I thought this was an excellent article, but then I wondered - what would you have written if in fact the Twins had signed Hendriks and Hand?  The slant and take might have been quite different, like the way we justify over paying for Donaldson who we expected would not be worth his final year salary.  Baseball has a very strange system for signing veterans who might be sliding down from their peak - like Kimbrel?

I think if we'd signed Hendriks and/or Hand the article would have been written. It would have been along the lines of "He's good and makes the bullpen better, but is it the best use of our resources?" Which I think is fair.

Would I have wanted Hendriks? Sure, in a vacuum. In a world where the Twins have no financial constraints. Do I want him at what the ChiSox paid him? I don't think so. He's getting a premium as a "proven closer" and it's just so rare that those guys add enough extra value consistently over relievers that can be found/made at much lower prices that it's usually not worth it. 

(I do think it's ok to pay a bit of an extra premium to retain your own players; continuity can matter, showing loyalty can matter for organizational reputation, etc. but even that has limits)

I question... What is the level of importance for relievers? Too Much? Do we all feel that way about Jeff Reardon (87) and Rick Aguilera (91). Both played major significant roles in winning 2 World Series. Do we then blame Joe Nathan, probably Minnesota's only other elite Closer for not carrying the Twins to a Championship? He was probably better than either Reardon or Aguilera, but you still need other pieces and a Manager that knows what he is doing and has a feel for the game. Tom Kelly pulled all the right punches in '87 and '91. Knowing when to use Aggie and Reardon and when to leave Morris (Game 7) in to finish. Only hindsight will tell you if what you did was right or wrong. If Hendricks helps the WSox to another title was signing him right or wrong? If not signing him and the Twins finish behind the WSox and SAVE money was not signing him right or wrong? Is the whole purpose of playing... to win the World Series or to make money? Where do the Twins stand?

It's weird to have faith in the Twins front office for the first time in my life, but I'd definitely rather they develop some guys they think they can work with rather than spend on a reliever. Or maybe I'm just still scared of a Matt Capps kind of situation

Can we just establish a rule in here that there be no further mention of "Matt Capps"?! LOL

What was amazing was that ALL teams passed on getting Hand for one-year and $10m. Now will probably be forced to still pay that amount, and have to offer a multi-year deal. 

The Twins could still use a bonafide closer. Both Duff and Rogers are better suited as set-up guys who can also close on occasion. I was a bit aghast that Wisler wasn't brought back, as his salary wouldn't have killed the payroll, and the guy did work as an opener, closer and multi-inning reliever to decent success. If he could hold or build on that success, he might've been a tradechip in the least.

Hendricks did good. Back when he was toiling as a starter prospect and not knowing where his career would take him, he ahs to be quite happy with this payday.

Bring Back Pat Neshek!

This is the exact reason I never would spend big on a reliever in FA.  They are so volatile and many times get over paid.  Yes, there are some guys that end up being worth it, but they are so few and far between.  Closers were the thing for awhile, but teams learned the save was a such a loaded stat. I will never be upset for letting bullpen guys walk or not signing top guys.  So often they end up being way overpaid. 

Good article Matt!  While I am not happy with Twins offseason to date(Bowden gave us an F Grade on The Athletic which is still too high), I have to agree that throwing a long term/high $ contract to a reliever makes little sense, if history is any guide.  The one time the Twins tried that - Addison Reed - was a disaster.  Obviously, if payroll was not an issue, then sure, Hendricks or Hands would be nice, but that is obviously not the case here.

Starting from the premise that the Twins need to bolster the bullpen with a shutdown arm,  mid price but high reward FAs abound.  I would be happy with a Trevor Rosenthal, Kirby Yates, Roberto Osuna, Alex Colome or, yes, even Brandon Kintzler(in that order).  Such an addition should be at least #2 on their priority list(an established starter or at least one young, controllable pitcher with a high ceiling should be #1, IMO).  And no one on this list should cost more than $5MM/yr - a perfectly reasonable figure for this org. looking for their first playoff win in 19 years.

Assuming the Twins have a minimum of $30MM left to spend, this would at least give them enough for resigning Cruz, maybe resign Odo(or some other second tier starter), add a $5MM per yr. reliever and maybe a utility IF.  This would up the grade to a C which will would mean going into the playoffs a distinct underdog but still with a decent shot.  To increase these odds, they'd need to add another $15MM or so to the budget.  Big question of this offseason is :  will this organization go for the brass ring or be content to run in place??

Addison Reed was a good gamble on a mid innings reliever, not to be confused with either Hendriks or Hand. Maybe the Twins like what they have right now, for the prices.

I'm just going to try and address about everything here because there's a lot of good meat on the bone to chew on.

But first, a tip of the cap to Matt for so much hard work and a very interesting and detailed OP!

1] EVERYONE wants that ONE GUY to finish a game or get the crucial outs in a big bullpen moment. But for DECADES the bullpen was just a group of guys to come in and finish things off and HOPEFULLY secure a win. Sometime in the 80's, roughly, the SAVE became a countable and important stat. In those days, 20-30 saves was excellent. A few guys even saved more than 30. Around the 90's and the early '20's era, we suddenly saw 40-50 saves as a benchmark.

But then something interesting happened. Some very smart people began to break down what a save actually meant and how empty the SAVE stat actually was. What they discovered was a lot of those saves were given to a guy who pitched 1-3 outs, with a lead, and was at times facing the lower part of the order, possibly facing a PH or two. They also discovered that games were actually won or lost in the 7th or 8th inning not necessitating a "closer" appearance in the 9th. And sometimes, it was the "set-up" man who actually faced a higher leverage situation. Which is also why a lot of closer types began in that role before transitioning to what we know now and define as the "closer" spot.

I DO NOT disparage the performances and careers of ANY past closer, especially great Twins such as Reardon, Guardado, Aguiilar, Nathan, etc.

But the game changes, as all sports do. Perception and the game within the game also changes. Several years ago, the term "fireman" became something more thzn just the title of an award presented at the end of season. Smart, forward thinking teams realized the 7th and 8th inning were often more important and harder to navigate than the 9th.

2] A traditional closer is no longer what it was. YES, there are times in a game when you want a quality and experienced arm to finish a win in the 9th against the top or heart of the order. But I think what has been proven, and slowly been adopted, is you really want about THREE arms or so that can you can "count on" to handle the final couple of innings. Prove me wrong?

3] Hendricks, Hand, etc, are all fine and proven arms. And I want the Twins to have as many quality pen arms as they can. But the pure "closer" idea is quickly becoming outdated.

Don't misunderstand, I'd LOVE a Hendricks, Hand, etc, in the pen. And the signing or Addison Reed...which looked good at the time...should NOT preclude the Twins from signing an "expensive" bullpen arm now or in the future. And true, quality pen arms can maintain viability in to their mid and even late 30's. But if you haven't seen a lot of those arms fade quickly vs $, then you aren't paying attention.

4] Even if you have a top closer for the 9th, he doesn't do much good unless he has opportunity to fulfill his role. Not just a team who can score enough runs, but a pen who can bring a lead to him. This brings us back again to the middle innings and having a deep and capable pen overall.

5] Rocco and the FO have adopted the newer priciple/analytics approach of a deep and versatile pen without defining roles such as primary set-up man or closer. They prefer matchups and fireman roles. THAT you can debate as you will; history vs changes in the game.

AGAIN, I have ZERO objection to adding a quality arm to the pen regardless of label. And we know there is volatility in the pen, game to game, week to week, month to month. But hitters are the same. We end up looking at the full season and final results for hitters as well as pitchers. So Rogers, with good peripherals, is suddenly toast? What might he have done in a full season? Now, he might have had a poor/mediocre season in 162G, and we will never know. But to not think/expect he can't be part of the back end of the pen going forward is also being short-sighted.

TODAY, with no additional moves yet made, the bullpen has Rogers, Duffey, Robles, Stashak, Alcala, Stashak and Thielbar penciled in. One new addition along with some subtractions, a group of un-interesting milb FA arms that could provide another Wisler, Harper, etc to help and surprise, along with an exciting Colina or Chalmers...even though I dream of him finding a 3rd pitch and sticking in the rotation...plus arms like Smeltzer or Thorpe providing help. (Also hoping a new year allows Thorpe to FIND himself again as a possible rotation piece).

There are a dozen RP arms out there still available at different ages who could absolutely be viable additions to the current pen without some huge $45M investment.

6] I still would have brought Wisler back. Not sure I buy $ and no options or a 1yr surprise but Robles essentially replaces either him or Romo at this point.

I WANT Clippard back for $2-3M. He proved, yet again, how good and reliable he is. I WANT another proven RH arm. Is Soria the answer? He COULD be. Do we get on Yates or Rosenthal for around $5M-ish? Maybe. Or Colome?

I want a deep and versatile pen. But I'm just not sweating a huge RP contract at this point with all that is still available externally and internally.