Should the Twins Have Signed a Reliever in Free Agency?

[Adam Friedman]

How are the free agent relievers that the Twins didn't sign doing?

Image courtesy of © Scott Taetsch-USA TODAY Sports

 

Many viewed the Twins' bullpen as a strength heading into this season, which was reasonable given the strong group at the top: Jhoan Duran, Jorge López, Griffin Jax, and Caleb Thielbar. While those guys are excellent, it seemed clear that for the bullpen to shine, it needed improved performances from a combination of Emilio Pagán, Jovani Moran, or Jorge Alcala. If they didn't step it up, an injury to one of the top four could be catastrophic, and beyond the injury concerns, a team needs more than four reliable relievers to succeed. 

While the Twins may have uncovered a hidden gem in Brock Stewart, it does not seem enough for the bullpen to thrive, with none of Pagán, Moran, or Alcala inspiring much confidence and Thielbar injured for now. The Twins are 23rd in relief pitcher xFIP in all of baseball, indicating they are lucky to be 12th in relief pitcher ERA. 

On Wednesday, the group's apparent weakness reared its ugly head when the Twins had a one-run lead over the Dodgers, with seemingly none of the back four available. Without their services available, Twins fans were subjected to a familiar sight- Pagán blowing the lead via a home run- in this case, a grand slam. 

With the lack of bullpen depth and the mystifying decision to bring him back, Pagán blowing a game isn't a shock. Many analysts advocated that the Twins add a reliever in free agency, but they chose not to sign a single reliever on a major league contract. That decision begs the question: how are the free-agent relievers doing in 2023? Could they have improved the Twins' bullpen?

The Expensive Signings ($10 million+ AAV)
This Twins front office has been reluctant to invest financially in the free agent reliever market, and when they have done it, it yielded poor results. Relievers can be highly volatile, so investing large sums of money in them is risky, but it can certainly pay off. 

The 2023 free agent class had six pitchers sign $10 million per year contracts or more- four of those signings being for multiple years. The four pitchers who received multiyear contracts are Edwin Diaz, Kenley Jansen, Rafael Montero, and Taylor Rogers. David Robertson and Craig Kimbrel each signed a one-year, $10 million deal. Diaz suffered a season-ending injury celebrating at the World Baseball Classic after becoming the first $100 million reliever, and Montero was resigned quickly by Houston. Rogers, Jansen, Kimbrel, and Robertson are the only four of the group who were seemingly available to the Twins and with any performance to evaluate in 2023. 

Rogers, Kimbrel, and Jansen have all been underwhelming- with ERAs of 4.72, 6.60, and 4.26. However, all have produced batted ball metrics indicating they've been above average but unlucky- with Jansen having an outstanding xERA of 3.06. He's probably the only of the three that would've been a worthwhile investment- but $32 million over two years is expensive for somebody with a 4.26 ERA- regardless of the underlying numbers. 

Robertson, on the other hand, has been one of the best relievers in the league. He's posted a dazzling 0.95 ERA with a 98th percentile xERA of 2.03. All that for $10 million is certainly worth it. It's an improvement on last season but not particularly surprising because he was also one of the better relievers in 2022. If not priced out, the Twins should have been at least interested in Robertson's services- and he would have improved the current bullpen.

Middle-Priced Options (Less Than $10 Million AAV) 
This group of relievers is much larger and not necessarily worth discussing in individualized detail. Still, it is worthwhile to see what options would've worked out and which might've been failed signings had the Twins brought them.

The group of pitchers who have been successful in 2023 in this price range is surprisingly large. Matt Moore, Adam Ottavino, Carlos Estevez, Andrew Chafin, Chris Martin, and even Aroldis Chapman have all been at least well above average by xERA. Assuming their performance would be the same for the Twins, all of those pitchers would have massively improved the Twins' bullpen. It's also unsurprising that Moore and Chafin are thriving- given their strong 2022 seasons. 

Admittedly, a few relievers signed in this price range have been poor or injured- so the Twins would have had to choose the right guy. But, surprisingly, at least so far, most of the relief pitchers signed for between $3 million and $10 million have had strong 2023 seasons, so it would have been hard to miss. Michael Fulmer, Pierce Johnson, and Trevor May (who was awful before getting injured) would have hurt this bullpen group. Still, it seems the Twins, had they spent Pagán's $3.5 million or more on a different reliever, would have helped a group that needs it. 

Consequences of Not Signing at Least One Reliever 
Choosing not to invest heavily in the bullpen via free agency has been a constant throughout the current regime's tenure. However, signing zero relievers to a major league deal is a new extreme. By choosing not to add bullpen depth, the Twins likely will lose a few extra games between now and the trade deadline, which could be costly for a team gunning for the playoffs. 

Further, barring breakouts from internal options or waivers, they will need to trade for at least one reliever at the deadline. Any trade will cost them prospect capital, and they'll have to pay a couple of months of that pitcher's salary anyway. The cost at the deadline to add needed bullpen help will likely be steeper than it would have been this winter. It is clear now that not adding a single reliever was a mistake, but it remains to be seen just how costly.

View full article

[D.C Twins]

Knee jerk reaction is YES WE SHOULD HAVE....

More nuanced assessment... would we have signed the right one out of the 'reliever lotto?'

I'm sure the bullpen is the bane of all GMs existence.... 

[Rod Carews Birthday]

If we signed the right one. . . obviously.  The problem is that there are too many that are not doing well, and yet teams (not just the Twins) have so much difficulty predicting it.  I'm just not sure that they are not better off waiting until the trade deadline and picking up one or two there who appear to be having a good season in 2023.  Still previous success, but more recent than last season and probably more reliable information.  It almost seems to be random.

Full disclosure:  I wanted them to sign Kimbrel and also have a reunion with Fullmer.  Those two make our guys look pretty good.   I guess it's a good thing I'm not in charge!

[Shaitan]

I've always liked Robertson as a pitcher, but I wouldn't pay him that with his injury history.

Trade deadline is where you acquire bullpen arms. It's such a fickle role that you strike for who is hot now and not on a long-term contract. Plus they're usually available for lesser prospects.

But I appreciate the angle of this article for sure. Asking "what would have happened" is pointless. Show us what is happening.

[Linus]

We didn’t need to get into the high end market. We just needed to raise the floor and their were options to do that. Now we are losing games and will give up more prospect at the deadline because our FO is so stubborn about how they build a bullpen. 

[wsnydes]

I think there's some hindsight involved with the bullpen.  I think there's been a few surprises, including Pagan actually being serviceable in low leverage situations, but I can't think of too many guys that were out there that I was all that interested in.

And relievers are notoriously wild cards.  So, I'm not overly concerned about it.  The offense is a much bigger issue for me.

[High heat]

Hine sight yes they should have.  I thinking they thought they had more in guys like Ronny Hernandez and Sand and Winder and an opening for those options rather then making them kick down the door.  
 

Pagans 3.5 million was a complete waste and I think we all knew that going into the season.   What they keep seeing in him is beyond me. 

[DJL44]

They should have kept Danny Couloumbe. He's been effective and he's dirt cheap.

[IndianaTwin]

We see statements like, "They chose not to sign a single reliever on a major league contract," on TD on a pretty regular basis. There's a couple of problems with that, however.

First, just because they didn't sign a reliever doesn't mean they "chose" not to. We've seen that they are pretty willing to sign players (I'm including both pitchers and hitters) at different price points, but it seems clear that they have rarely chosen to go beyond their perceived value on a player. I applaud that.

For all we know, they may have made offers to every one of those players. They just didn't value players at a higher price point than at least one other team did. I mean, sure, they could have "chosen" to commit to getting at least one player, at whatever price they needed to pay, but you'd better guess right. So far at least, the Mets did on a couple guys I most liked (Robertson). The Cubs didn't on a guy I also liked (Fulmer). 

A second problem is that it doesn't take into account what the Twins would have needed to pay to outbid the team that got someone. By definition, they would have needed to pay more than $7.25M (plus a player option) for Ottavino and more than $10M for Robertson, for example, since that's what the Mets offered. And based on the way the Mets spent money this offseason, they may well have been willing to go well beyond that.       

[USAFChief]

Ignoring the pen was a huge mistake.

I really don't understand claims to the contrary. 

[h2oface]

No. We should always trade away our best relievers and just dumpster dive for replacements and hope for the best.

[Blyleven2011]

Should of woulda could of ...

I like Jax and evidently Rocco does too  but he is being used to much ( don't pitch him consecutive days )  2 walks tonight against the angels  , walks will haunt ...

Rocco is handling pitchers differently than last year   starters barely went beyond 5 innings  , now they go 6 plus innings , relief pitchers he used primarily every other day last year  , this year he is using relief pitchers on consecutive days ...

so it seems the farther  away from the shortened 2020 season  , the more the FO and Rocco  think the pitchers are less likely to be injured ( meaning they babied the pitchers to build up their strength over the past few years so now it's safe to overwork and pitch them more ) ...

Yes we could of used an arm via free agency  , look what the cost was to acquire an all-star  J. Lopez at last year's deadline  ...

[Major League Ready]

5 hours ago, h2oface said:

No. We should always trade away our best relievers and just dumpster dive for replacements and hope for the best.

Keeping Rogers and then extending him would have been a difference maker?  I would say the decision to spend $33M elsewhere was better for the team.

[weitz41]

Frustrating as it may be the BP is going to blow games here and there.

The 40 man is clogged with prospects, Which one do you want to give up for the relievers we should have signed? Yeah,..yeah...Pagan, Pagan, PAGAN..I get it..But the FO does not.

So who else? I don't see one that sticks out that will make it through waivers. 

I don't think spending money on the BP is the primary reason why they didn't spend on the BP.

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, weitz41 said:

Frustrating as it may be the BP is going to blow games here and there.

The 40 man is clogged with prospects, Which one do you want to give up for the relievers we should have signed? Yeah,..yeah...Pagan, Pagan, PAGAN..I get it..But the FO does not.

So who else? I don't see one that sticks out that will make it through waivers. 

I don't think spending money on the BP is the primary reason why they didn't spend on the BP.

They found a spot for Solano on this "clogged" 40 man roster in March. I understood not adding anyone in January but I was bewildered why they didn't when the 60 man IL spots opened up.

[dxpavelka]

I always love the fact that these types of articles always overlook the fact that signing with the Twins in no way shape or form means any given player would do or would have done the same thing here that they did elsewhere. Sure we all want to believe that, probably mostly so we can believe that we are smarter than the actual folks that make the decisions but those thoughts are just not grounded in reality.

 

[dxpavelka]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

They found a spot for Solano on this "clogged" 40 man roster in March. I understood not adding anyone in January but I was bewildered why they didn't when the 60 man IL spots opened up.

I know, right?  Hard to imagine where we'd be without Solano's 5 RBI.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

10 hours ago, IndianaTwin said:

And based on the way the Mets spent money this offseason, they may well have been willing to go well beyond that.   

I don’t think spending constraints is the reason for the Twins bullpen woes. The Twins did pay Carlos Correa by about 25% more than the Mets offered. 

[Trov]

Picking the right pen arm of the FA is like picking the floating rubber duck at kids carnivals.  They all look pretty much the same as they go around, but until you pick one you do not know what you will get.  Some get injured quickly, some have good starts and fade, some start slow and get better, and some just are not worth it.  Pen arms are some of the most volatile positions around. 

I do find it interesting that the article praises Jax for being good and attacks Pagan for being bad, but overall numbers have been better for Pagan this year than Jax.  Yes, Jax has had a lot more higher leverage, but really since end of April he has been down right bad.  Yes, he has been giving up weak contact hits, but eventually you need to think about fact he is not getting the outs, and say it is not just bad luck.  For years people would say Rogers was getting unlucky, this article mentions it that he may be getting unlucky again this year, how long can someone be unlucky before we just say, they are not getting the outs?  

[mikelink45]

I just don't think you can really invest in RP - your article makes that point.  And among our good RP you list Jax - this year he is not an asset.  RP are erratic, partly because no one really know how to use them.

Our investment needs to be in the minors - most RP were never great prospects, but the maximize a limited arsenal.  
 

We continue to have Sands sitting in the BP, taking up space but not appearing.  What have we done with him, Balazovic, Winder, or any of the others who do not look like they will be in the rotation, but have a good arm and a good pitch or two?  

[DocBauer]

Ye, they should have. But the problem then is the same as now, "who"?

Articles like this are interesting with hindsight. But at the time, despite looking at numbers and history and projection, it's still a gamble as to who you sign.

However, that gamble is well worth it, and a much smarter avenue to go down, rather than retaining literally the worst RP in the game for the past 5yrs. 

I still have hope for Alcala. But I also stated during the offseason I didn't want to HAVE to count on him. 

HUGE error in judgement keeping Pagan. And HUGE error to not take his $3.5M and add a little more and take a shot on a FA arm you felt good about. Then you cross your fingers. That's better than the alternative. 

[darin617]

You they should have added a piece to the pen in the winter. Now they will end up trading prospects in July to shore it up. 

[JD-TWINS]

18 hours ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

If we signed the right one. . . obviously.  The problem is that there are too many that are not doing well, and yet teams (not just the Twins) have so much difficulty predicting it.  I'm just not sure that they are not better off waiting until the trade deadline and picking up one or two there who appear to be having a good season in 2023.  Still previous success, but more recent than last season and probably more reliable information.  It almost seems to be random.

Full disclosure:  I wanted them to sign Kimbrel and also have a reunion with Fullmer.  Those two make our guys look pretty good.   I guess it's a good thing I'm not in charge!

I liked Chafin or Hand (either) as well as Fulmer, so it’s not easy to get it right.

Alcala & Moran pitch the way we expected & all is good……(ERA of around 4.00 with a few less walks)……. even take away 2 bad outings by Jax & everybody would be satisfied.

Pagan has to go just to make one feel like organization is at least trying to do the right thing.

Week of June 5th: Twins Pen

Stewart - Jax - Balazovic - Thielbar - Maeda - Lopez - Duran - Headrick (next up, Moran - Alcala - Sands) 

I get Headrick is stretching out to back up the current remaining 5 starters but we need him in Pen now. He gets outs. Will have to flex if another starter goes down. Hoping Winder gets right in another 30-45 days!

[Adam Friedman]

20 hours ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

If we signed the right one. . . obviously.  The problem is that there are too many that are not doing well, and yet teams (not just the Twins) have so much difficulty predicting it.  I'm just not sure that they are not better off waiting until the trade deadline and picking up one or two there who appear to be having a good season in 2023.  Still previous success, but more recent than last season and probably more reliable information.  It almost seems to be random.

Full disclosure:  I wanted them to sign Kimbrel and also have a reunion with Fullmer.  Those two make our guys look pretty good.   I guess it's a good thing I'm not in charge!

Choosing relievers is hard but also part of the job. I advocated for Moore a couple months back when I wrote about the last available guys, but it’s really tough to predict.

[Alex Wilde]

Should have kept Ian Hamilton and could have easily signed Nick Anderson both for the league minimum and they would be the 3/4 guys in the BP right now after Duran and López. There young guys are not developing and Jax is a mess.

[Danchat]

18 hours ago, wsnydes said:

I think there's some hindsight involved with the bullpen.  I think there's been a few surprises, including Pagan actually being serviceable in low leverage situations, but I can't think of too many guys that were out there that I was all that interested in.

And relievers are notoriously wild cards.  So, I'm not overly concerned about it.  The offense is a much bigger issue for me.

I don't think it's hindsight, there were some of us - including me - that thought adding zero FA relievers was a bad idea and we could at least use a mid-guy like Chafin to bolster our depth. 

The offense is the bigger issue, but if we are expecting the Twins to build a team that can do damage in the playoffs, they've got to field a better bullpen then this. And yes, I know FA relievers are volatile - but at some point they need to roll the dice. Joe Smith was our biggest FA addition over the past two years, and if you look at the FO's entire FA history... is there a single success? It's not that they're bad at building a bullpen, but they should have taken similar steps to solidifying it the same way they were liberal with adding starters and adding depth to the lineup.

[Adam Friedman]

15 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Ignoring the pen was a huge mistake.

I really don't understand claims to the contrary. 

It’s a volatile market and you’re generally better off relying on homegrown guys, but one $5 million-$9 million one-year deal just seems like it would benefit the team a lot. Honestly, before doing the research, I expected most of the cheaper options to be struggling, but most are thriving. 

[Adam Friedman]

21 hours ago, D.C Twins said:

Knee jerk reaction is YES WE SHOULD HAVE....

More nuanced assessment... would we have signed the right one out of the 'reliever lotto?'

I'm sure the bullpen is the bane of all GMs existence.... 

Certainly easier to be me than Derek Falvey. You need a plan for whoever you sign, but they could easily bust/get injured regardless of the plan. Just seems like it was foreseeable they’d be in the situation, which is why I wrote about the available options a couple months ago (February I believe). 

[IndianaTwin]

23 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Ignoring the pen was a huge mistake.

I really don't understand claims to the contrary. 

If you look back to the offseason, you'd find that I was an advocate for signing multiple relief arms. My approach is that the more darts you throw against the wall, the more likelihood for bullseyes. 

But I don't think it's accurate to associate a lack of MLB signings with "ignoring the pen." As analytical as the front office is, it's hard for me to imagine them ignoring anything. 

For what it's worth, the FO may have...

• Looked at Duran and thought they had a closer. For the most part, they've been right. 
• Looked at Lopez and thought they had their backup closer/8th inning guy. For the most part, they've been right. 
• Looked at Jax and thought they had a high leverage righty. For the most part, they've been wrong. 
• Looked at Thielbar and thought they had a high leverage lefty. He's been hurt, so in that sense they've been wrong. 
• Looked at Pagan and thought he was worth $3.5 million, based on how he pitched the last part of last season and thinking they could fix other issues. For the most part, they've been right, with a couple notable blowups. 
• Looked at Alcala and thought that with health, he would develop into a contributor. Not so much.
• And Moran. Not so much. 
• Looked at the starters and their plan for improving the rotation and determined they'd need about 20 percent fewer innings from the bullpen. For the most part, they've been right. 

The cumulative of those may have led to not pursuing any MLB pitchers, but those are all "decisions," not a case of "ignoring" the bullpen.

Similarly, for all we know they made an offer to Robertson that wasn't acceptable. And to Ottavino. And to Fulmer. And to whoever your favorites were. Again, we don't know if any of those happened, but if so, those are decisions on the max they want to give a reliever, not a case of "ignoring" the bullpen.

If you want to say it was a mistake to not offer one or two guys more, enough to sign them, I'm fine with that. I might even agree with you, though I don't remember many, if any, signings where I thought, "Wow, I wish the Twins would have offered more than that." That speaks to the volatility of relievers that others have referenced. 

 What we know is that they didn't sign any MLB relievers (other than tendering Pagan). What we don't know is the decision-making process. As is generally the case with the front office, we just don't know enough of what happened, so it seems overly simplistic to equate a lack of MLB signings with "ignoring." 

[IndianaTwin]

13 hours ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

I don’t think spending constraints is the reason for the Twins bullpen woes. The Twins did pay Carlos Correa by about 25% more than the Mets offered. 

I wasn't suggesting that they COULDN'T offer more for the relievers the Mets signed. Rather, I'm saying that it would have likely cost more than the Mets paid and the Twins CHOSE not to go there.