Emilioooo!

[raindog]

They have to DFA him at this point, right? Right??? The front office can't possibly be considering anything else if they are serious people. 

[August J Gloop]

Don't they also have to DFA Varland, then? He also gave up 3 runs in an inning in yesterday's bum-out. Plus he gave up another run earlier.

I'm not saying I don't agree that ultimately Pagan is a black hole in these leverage innings, but there will be a lot of low leverage innings ahead and since they have to pay him anyway, leave him in the mop up role he's actually been doing good at. Just no more ahead close and late innings for Mr Pagan, and then a ticket to watch the post season from elsewhere. 

[raindog]

There are always going to be times when you have to use your low leverage guys in high leverage spots. He has shown time and time again he can't handle that. 

The Varland comparison is ridiculous. It's not a knee jerk reaction to say they should move on from a reliever that has been awful for four seasons straight. 

[August J Gloop]

4 minutes ago, raindog said:

There are always going to be times when you have to use your low leverage guys in high leverage spots. He has shown time and time again he can't handle that. 

The Varland comparison is ridiculous. It's not a knee jerk reaction to say they should move on from a reliever that has been awful for four seasons straight. 

Varland lost the game as much as Pagan did, probably more by not being able to get out of the 5th inning with a 5 run lead. 

Look, It's not the order the runs score in, it's the quantity. Pagan has pitched 90 innings and given up 45 runs in a Twins uniform. Not that inspiring. Varland has thrown 77 innings and given up 39. That's definitely worse. Pagan's Fip with Twins:  3.96. Varland: 4.92. 

Pagan has been on the mound for a few of the worst losses in recent memory, but he's not usually the sole reason for many of the losses the team has endured. 

[LA Vikes Fan]

While I agree that the main reason we lost yesterday was Varland's inability to pitch well with a five run lead, you can't really compare him with Pagan. Varland is a young starting pitcher who has the potential of being a solid mid rotation starter. He is now going through some serious growing pains right now and his inability to even give us five innings with a big cushion is the reason we lost yesterday. He may still be a year away from staying on the roster all year long and will probably be replaced in the rotation when Maeda is ready. Still, he is part of a future Twins rotation.

Pagan is not part of anybody's future. He is at best an overpaid low leverage reliever who has shown time and time again that he cannot handle high pressure situations. He should be sent out either by a DFA or as part of a trade package to a bad team like Oakland or Washington. I don't think there is much in the trade market for him and the FO doesn't like to admit mistakes, so I suspect he will be on the roster all season.

 

[mnfireman]

15 minutes ago, August J Gloop said:

Varland lost the game as much as Pagan did, probably more by not being able to get out of the 5th inning with a 5 run lead. 

If the team had been able to play even average defense, Varland would have been out of the inning... 

[Vanimal46]

I don’t know why this latest appearance would be the final straw for this FO to make a change. His Stuff+ on that 95 MPH middle middle pitch hit over the fence was probably incredible! 

[FlyingFinn]

1 hour ago, August J Gloop said:

Varland lost the game as much as Pagan did, probably more by not being able to get out of the 5th inning with a 5 run lead. 

You must not have watched the game yesterday. Varland got them to hit a perfect double play grounder and the infielders totally botched it. That would have been 5 innings with 1 run given up then. And you want to cut him. Ridiculous!

[stringer bell]

No rebuilding team is going to be interested in a 32-year-old non-closer. 

[Woof Bronzer]

2 hours ago, August J Gloop said:

Don't they also have to DFA Varland, then?

Just....wow.  

[August J Gloop]

1 hour ago, FlyingFinn said:

You must not have watched the game yesterday. Varland got them to hit a perfect double play grounder and the infielders totally botched it. That would have been 5 innings with 1 run given up then. And you want to cut him. Ridiculous!

I don't want to cut him. I'm saying the argument for cutting Pagan is based on him providing better numbers than a struggling rookie. This whole goofball nonsense about how Varland should have been out of the inning is so silly. He went to pieces because they only got one out on a 97+ mph oppo hit by Vlad Jr? The ball to Chapman was every bit as terrible as the ball to Biggio. He did that because 'his defense let him down'? Then yeah, time to go back to AAA for a while.

I just think the Pagan thing is kinda dumb. He's not that great and gets used inappropriately sometimes, but he's not close to the actual reason the Twins are at .500 right now. And certainly, Varland was every bit as responsible as Pagan, probably moreso. If anyone should really feel bad about themselves for Sunday it's Jorge Lopez, who should have been out there in the 8th putting down any thought of scoring. But no, he's gone round the bend. 

[howeda7]

That he was ever on the roster at all in 2023 is a joke that only occurred thanks to Falvey's arrogance/hubris and that's not changing .

[howeda7]

1 hour ago, August J Gloop said:

I don't want to cut him. I'm saying the argument for cutting Pagan is based on him providing better numbers than a struggling rookie. This whole goofball nonsense about how Varland should have been out of the inning is so silly. He went to pieces because they only got one out on a 97+ mph oppo hit by Vlad Jr? The ball to Chapman was every bit as terrible as the ball to Biggio. He did that because 'his defense let him down'? Then yeah, time to go back to AAA for a while.

I just think the Pagan thing is kinda dumb. He's not that great and gets used inappropriately sometimes, but he's not close to the actual reason the Twins are at .500 right now. And certainly, Varland was every bit as responsible as Pagan, probably moreso. If anyone should really feel bad about themselves for Sunday it's Jorge Lopez, who should have been out there in the 8th putting down any thought of scoring. But no, he's gone round the bend. 

The Varland argument is just dumb. You're comparing a rookie to a terrible, vastly over-paid veteran that should never have been tendered a contract.

Lopez' recent struggles are concerning, but he was dominant for the entire month of April and not just in garbage time. They were saving him for the 9th yesterday. They should have either used Jax for 2 innings or DeLeon. Even Winder would have been better than putting Pagan in. Pagan should be DFA'd by game-time tomorrow but he won't be.

[Riverbrian]

4 hours ago, August J Gloop said:

I'm not saying I don't agree that ultimately Pagan is a black hole in these leverage innings, but there will be a lot of low leverage innings ahead and since they have to pay him anyway, leave him in the mop up role he's actually been doing good at. Just no more ahead close and late innings for Mr Pagan, and then a ticket to watch the post season from elsewhere. 

I won't get into the Varland thing that others are. You were making a point and I understand your point. 

I also agree that Pagan is not the reason we are .500. 

However... If he can't be trusted for close and late innings... Like you suggest...  He has no place on this roster. 

He is an expiring contract. If the Twins keep him on the roster for low leverage and he gets beat in high leverage again and again because he is the only guy available. The front office can't justify it with... well... he was only supposed to be low leverage.

They won't be able to justify letting a guy hurt us this year when he won't be back next year. 

I say the opposite... I say if the front office continues to believe in this guy... then damn it... believe in this guy... THROW HIM HIGH LEVERAGE. You either believe in him or you don't. He helps us this year or he doesn't help us at all because he's gone next year. 

If he requires fixing before he sees high leverage... you are fixing a guy on an expiring contract. 

Dear Front Office... If you like him... fine... put your money where your mouth is. 

Tick Tick Tick

 

[USAFChief]

1 hour ago, August J Gloop said:

I don't want to cut him. I'm saying the argument for cutting Pagan is based on him providing better numbers than a struggling rookie. This whole goofball nonsense about how Varland should have been out of the inning is so silly. He went to pieces because they only got one out on a 97+ mph oppo hit by Vlad Jr? The ball to Chapman was every bit as terrible as the ball to Biggio. He did that because 'his defense let him down'? Then yeah, time to go back to AAA for a while.

I just think the Pagan thing is kinda dumb. He's not that great and gets used inappropriately sometimes, but he's not close to the actual reason the Twins are at .500 right now. And certainly, Varland was every bit as responsible as Pagan, probably moreso. If anyone should really feel bad about themselves for Sunday it's Jorge Lopez, who should have been out there in the 8th putting down any thought of scoring. But no, he's gone round the bend. 

1. Let's get this out of the way first: there are no low leverage relievers. Everyone in your pen will pitch multiple times with the game close. It's inevitable. "He's just fine pitching when it doesn't matter" won't happen. And if that's the plan, you're rostering the wrong player.

2. Varland didn't pitch very well, but he also didn't get a lot of help, battled, and pitched 4+ times more innings than Pagan. He did enough to leave with the lead.

3. I don't agree "(Pagan's) numbers are better than Varland." Maybe superficially, but they don't have the same job description. 

4. With Duran unavailable, Lopez would have had the 9th. Pagan's job was 1 effing inning against the 7-8-9 hitters. With a 2 run lead. See pt nr 1.

5. Pagan's struggles aren't a recent development. He's been bad for several years now.

 

[August J Gloop]

It's absolute silliness to ever quote stats if you only want to use them to back up your emotional feelings about someone who has had some bad timing with his bad innings. Emilo has blown some major games. Nobody is disputing that. But acting like he blows every game he's in is nuts. Gleeman loves this stat:

Of course that that means that since his overall WPA with the Twins is -1.8, All of his other appearances must be a WPA of +.7 Again, not that cool (since it's at best .35 per season offset with fantastic blowups). Only two pitchers not named Duran have that much at all with the team the past couple years: Thielbar and Fulmer. I'm not trying to say that you can't have bad feelings about Pagan, but it's not like he never gets the job done. Most of his appearances have resulted in zero runs for the opponents.  Runs have scored in 25 of 73 of his appearances. Duran: 13/80. 

I'm not arguing that he's the best pickup in Twins history, but he's a lightning rod for fans because he's the one holding the bag for many painful losses. I doubt I'd have even offered him a contract in the off season, and instead pursued Fulmer. So that goes to show how good at this I'd be. 

[KirbyDome89]

8 minutes ago, August J Gloop said:

It's absolute silliness to ever quote stats if you only want to use them to back up your emotional feelings about someone who has had some bad timing with his bad innings. Emilo has blown some major games. Nobody is disputing that. But acting like he blows every game he's in is nuts. Gleeman loves this stat:

Of course that that means that since his overall WPA with the Twins is -1.8, All of his other appearances must be a WPA of +.7 Again, not that cool (since it's at best .35 per season offset with fantastic blowups). Only two pitchers not named Duran have that much at all with the team the past couple years: Thielbar and Fulmer. I'm not trying to say that you can't have bad feelings about Pagan, but it's not like he never gets the job done. Most of his appearances have resulted in zero runs for the opponents.  Runs have scored in 25 of 73 of his appearances. Duran: 13/80. 

I'm not arguing that he's the best pickup in Twins history, but he's a lightning rod for fans because he's the one holding the bag for many painful losses. I doubt I'd have even offered him a contract in the off season, and instead pursued Fulmer. So that goes to show how good at this I'd be. 

Huh? Don't bring empirical evidence to back up what your eyes are telling you? 

I don't understand why this is the hill to die on. The guy had a 1.052 OPS in high leverage last year. This year it's 1.500 in smaller SS. It's already been explained that it's impossible to shield guys (particularly in the Twins pen) from higher leverage situations. There's no zag while everyone else is zigging here, i.e. there's no defense for continuing to roster a guy like Pagan. 

[August J Gloop]

Just now, KirbyDome89 said:

Huh? Don't bring empirical evidence to back up what your eyes are telling you? 

I don't understand why this is the hill to die on. The guy had a 1.052 OPS in high leverage last year. This year it's 1.500 in smaller SS. It's already been explained that it's impossible to shield guys (particularly in the Twins pen) from higher leverage situations. There's no zag while everyone else is zigging here, i.e. there's no defense for continuing to roster a guy like Pagan. 

He's not been great, I've never said he has. I'm just saying he's not always that bad, and since they have to pay him anyway, he'll be around for a while longer. And if you need something to hang on to, it's there. Or you can chase yourself down a hole of getting mad at things you can't control. 

[stringer bell]

Here’s the thing from my point of view. With an eight-man bullpen, including one “long man” who has avoided all high leverage, every one will occasionally be in higher leverage situations—tie games or small leads in the late innings. Even with the starting rotation consistently going deep in games, situations occur, for all seven of the remaining BP arms. Pagán has gone four years when he’s performed among the worst relievers in baseball in those situations. His value is near zero if he can’t occasionally get through high-leverage innings. 
 

There are lots of warts on the remaining arms in the upper minors, but several must be a better option than Emilio Pagán. 

[mnfireman]

His stuff plays, and there are multiple teams interested in him. But they only want to give up a low-level prospect who will be out of baseball in a year. Same with Kepler.

[Mike Sixel]

He's been terrible for several years. He should not be on this roster. It's one reason I'd fire the FO at this point. 

[IndianaTwin]

Here’s another angle…

What is the reason to keep Jorge Lopez over Pagan? 

So far this season, Pagan has a positive WPA in 17 games and a negative in 7, a “winning percentage” of .708. Lopez has had a positive in 19 and a negative in 9, a “winning percentage” of .679. Advantage Pagan.

In Pagan’s negative WPA games, the values were .680, .611, .299, .041, .024, .023 and .002. In Lopez’s, the values were .396, .331, .276, .181, .156, .143, .070, .050, .035.

Looking a little deeper, Pagan had two disasters — in LA and yesterday. The .299 was when he came in for an injured Maeda, didn’t pitch well in his first inning and then took one for the team and kept pitching. His other negatives include a game where he came in down two in the seventh and gave up one run; another where he came in in the 8th, down three, and gave up a run while pitching the final 1.1; the game where he came in down two, hit a batter and was pulled because of injury; and a game where he came in on the road, down six with a runner on base, and allowed that runner to score while pitching the final two innings. In those four, he had no real effect on the outcome, but did help the team by covering an inning (or more) that someone else would have needed to cover.

Given that he came in already behind, I think you can only say that Pagan played a significant role in cost the team two wins. Perhaps a third (the Maeda game), but the win probability was already down at .35 when he came in, so it was already a long shot. 

Contrast to Lopez, who has had a greater effect on the number of losses. In three of the negatives, he has a blown save and in another he got the loss. He has eight games where his negative is bigger than Pagan’s fourth-worst. He has six games where he either entered with a lead and left either tied or down or entered tied and left down. That’s somewhere from 4-6 losses at his hand.

On the other side, Pagan’s positive games include a .309, .120 and .105. His remaining 14 are between .056 and .001, largely reflective of doing his job, most often in the 7th. The most common scenario is his coming in in the 7th, down one or two, and pitching a scoreless inning. In two of those, he vultured himself a win. The .309 was his scoreless 11th inning in the 12-inning win over Chicago, when he also got the win. 

Lopez’s positive games include a .138, .135 and .128. None are as high as the Pagan extra inning game, but his remaining 16 are more evenly spread between .093 and .006, largely the result of pitching an inning later than Pagan. 

I’m not sure how you compare the positive-side games, but I’d suggest that Pagan played a major role in one win, a moderately major role in a couple others, and a positive effect in another 14 games. Lopez hasn’t had the major effect on any games, but has had a modest effect on three or so and and a positive effect in another 16 games. 

If you look at the two side-by-side, I’d argue that the team is 1-2 in games where Pagan has had a major effect on the outcome, but  somewhere from 0-4 to 0-6 in games where Lopez has had a major effect.

If the argument that Pagan should be gone is that he’s blown two games, I think you should be saying the same about Lopez. 

 

But Lopez has had past success, you might say.

Not that much. He’s been truly atrocious for most of his career. Any sense of success is driven by the first part of last season when he was with Baltimore. From 2018 to 2021, his ERAs were 6.35, 6.33, 6.69 and 6.07. During that time, Pagan’s were 4.35, 2.31, 4.50 and 4.83. I know that ERA isn’t a great measurement for relievers, but that’s a stark contrast in Pagan’s favor. During the two months they were teammates last year, they were virtually identical in WPA. Pagan was -.225 in 21 games and Lopez was -.273 in 23.

[IndianaTwin]

My previous post was already long, so I’m separating this out. In terms of the team record, Jax has also had a much bigger effect on the number of losses than Pagan. 

He’s had three games where he’s entered up one and left down one, another where he’s entered up one and left tied and three were he entered tied and left down one or two. The Twins have lost all seven. 

I get that Jax is younger and is perceived to have a higher upside, so I’m not (necessarily) saying he be cut loose, but it can’t be denied that he’s played a major role in losing seven games. 

 

[Mike Sixel]

12 minutes ago, IndianaTwin said:

My previous post was already long, so I’m separating this out. In terms of the team record, Jax has also had a much bigger effect on the number of losses than Pagan. 

He’s had three games where he’s entered up one and left down one, another where he’s entered up one and left tied and three were he entered tied and left down one or two. The Twins have lost all seven. 

I get that Jax is younger and is perceived to have a higher upside, so I’m not (necessarily) saying he be cut loose, but it can’t be denied that he’s played a major role in losing seven games. 

 

Jax was good last year. Pagan is not. It's possible to discuss one player. Should pagan be on this roster? Not other players, pagan? I vote no. 

[mnfireman]

45 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Jax was good last year. Pagan is not. It's possible to discuss one player. Should pagan be on this roster? Not other players, pagan? I vote no. 

Just gotta hate when somebody runs the numbers and disputes your claim that "Player A" is the worst player on the team...

[IndianaTwin]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

Jax was good last year. Pagan is not. It's possible to discuss one player. Should pagan be on this roster? Not other players, pagan? I vote no. 

1. Except that you can’t really discuss just one player, because you have to replace him with someone. I get that some (including you, I’m guessing) would like to take a chance on an unproven minor leaguer. I won’t claim to have a good sense on who that would be, but I’ve not seen any minor leaguers that I’m convinced are better.  See point 3.

2. Similarly, if you are going to replace someone, you start with the worst. Previous to the post you quoted, I made the argument that I think right now Lopez deserves to be lower. 

3. I think there’s a reasonable chance that neither Lopez nor Pagan lasts the season. The Twins do have examples of relievers they’ve jettisoned — Addison Reed, Tyler Duffey, Joe Smith to name a few.

However, their pattern is never to do that until they have known quantities to take their place. They won’t DFA a veteran to create a space for a rookie, particularly in the volatility of the bullpen.

Right now, they have Duran at No. 1. Despite having cost a bunch of games earlier, Jax is trending back and may be No. 2. Particularly being a lefty, I think they think Moran is a keeper and may be No. 3. I like how they have brought Stewart and DeLeon along. If they haven’t passed Lopez and Pagan on the team’s pecking order, they are soon to do so and would be Nos. 4 and 5. That makes Lopez and Pagan Nos. 6 and 7 on their confidence level. Based on that the plan yesterday was Pagan in the eighth with the bottom of the order and Lopez in the ninth with the top suggests to me that they are in that order, though I think they are close. My argument above puts Pagan at 6 and Lopez at 7. 

Right now, Winder is in the No. 8 slot. Over time, he will either pitch himself past either Lopez or Pagan, or they will bring up another guy to give it a try.  It won’t be until that person pitches himself past Lopez or Pagan for an extended period of time (and assuming the guys I listed 1-5 stay healthy and effective) that one of them will get the DFA. (The other thing that could create a DFA is Thielbar coming back and staying healthy. Maeda’s impending return also plays into the mix, particularly if they go to a six-man rotation for a couple trips through and end up with a seven-man bullpen, but right now, I think they send Winder back down.)

I think they are close to a DFA for Pagan or Lopez, but I don’t think it happens until they have a few more outings from Stewart and DeLeon AND at least one more guy pitches his way past them. It’s just not their approach to let go of a veteran until they feel confident that they have been passed.

(As aside, I think that’s the same thing that’s happening on the offensive side with Kepler — they won’t let him go until they are convinced he’s been passed. They are not yet there with Larnach/Wallner, etc.)

[KirbyDome89]

5 hours ago, August J Gloop said:

He's not been great, I've never said he has. I'm just saying he's not always that bad, and since they have to pay him anyway, he'll be around for a while longer. And if you need something to hang on to, it's there. Or you can chase yourself down a hole of getting mad at things you can't control. 

Except he's bad when, ya know, it matters the most. The salary is a sunk cost, it shouldn't dictate Pagan's spot on the roster. He offers nothing as far as future value. Run a revolving door of AAA/AAAA guys in low leverage situations and who knows, maybe somebody sticks.

[Mike Sixel]

12 hours ago, mnfireman said:

Just gotta hate when somebody runs the numbers and disputes your claim that "Player A" is the worst player on the team...

I did not anywhere make that claim. Not once ,anywhere. I suggested we discuss the topic of the thread, should Pagan be on the roster. Nothing more or less. I did suggest, as Gleeman has pointed out over and over, that Pagan has been terrible for multiple years, and that Jax was good last year. 

[KirbyDome89]

17 hours ago, IndianaTwin said:

Here’s another angle…

What is the reason to keep Jorge Lopez over Pagan? 

So far this season, Pagan has a positive WPA in 17 games and a negative in 7, a “winning percentage” of .708. Lopez has had a positive in 19 and a negative in 9, a “winning percentage” of .679. Advantage Pagan.

In Pagan’s negative WPA games, the values were .680, .611, .299, .041, .024, .023 and .002. In Lopez’s, the values were .396, .331, .276, .181, .156, .143, .070, .050, .035.

Looking a little deeper, Pagan had two disasters — in LA and yesterday. The .299 was when he came in for an injured Maeda, didn’t pitch well in his first inning and then took one for the team and kept pitching. His other negatives include a game where he came in down two in the seventh and gave up one run; another where he came in in the 8th, down three, and gave up a run while pitching the final 1.1; the game where he came in down two, hit a batter and was pulled because of injury; and a game where he came in on the road, down six with a runner on base, and allowed that runner to score while pitching the final two innings. In those four, he had no real effect on the outcome, but did help the team by covering an inning (or more) that someone else would have needed to cover.

Given that he came in already behind, I think you can only say that Pagan played a significant role in cost the team two wins. Perhaps a third (the Maeda game), but the win probability was already down at .35 when he came in, so it was already a long shot. 

Contrast to Lopez, who has had a greater effect on the number of losses. In three of the negatives, he has a blown save and in another he got the loss. He has eight games where his negative is bigger than Pagan’s fourth-worst. He has six games where he either entered with a lead and left either tied or down or entered tied and left down. That’s somewhere from 4-6 losses at his hand.

On the other side, Pagan’s positive games include a .309, .120 and .105. His remaining 14 are between .056 and .001, largely reflective of doing his job, most often in the 7th. The most common scenario is his coming in in the 7th, down one or two, and pitching a scoreless inning. In two of those, he vultured himself a win. The .309 was his scoreless 11th inning in the 12-inning win over Chicago, when he also got the win. 

Lopez’s positive games include a .138, .135 and .128. None are as high as the Pagan extra inning game, but his remaining 16 are more evenly spread between .093 and .006, largely the result of pitching an inning later than Pagan. 

I’m not sure how you compare the positive-side games, but I’d suggest that Pagan played a major role in one win, a moderately major role in a couple others, and a positive effect in another 14 games. Lopez hasn’t had the major effect on any games, but has had a modest effect on three or so and and a positive effect in another 16 games. 

If you look at the two side-by-side, I’d argue that the team is 1-2 in games where Pagan has had a major effect on the outcome, but  somewhere from 0-4 to 0-6 in games where Lopez has had a major effect.

If the argument that Pagan should be gone is that he’s blown two games, I think you should be saying the same about Lopez. 

 

But Lopez has had past success, you might say.

Not that much. He’s been truly atrocious for most of his career. Any sense of success is driven by the first part of last season when he was with Baltimore. From 2018 to 2021, his ERAs were 6.35, 6.33, 6.69 and 6.07. During that time, Pagan’s were 4.35, 2.31, 4.50 and 4.83. I know that ERA isn’t a great measurement for relievers, but that’s a stark contrast in Pagan’s favor. During the two months they were teammates last year, they were virtually identical in WPA. Pagan was -.225 in 21 games and Lopez was -.273 in 23.

Mystery solved. Pagan hasn't even been decent for 3-4 years now. Lopez was an AS last year and Jax was pretty solid. This isn't hard. 

[Linus]

What this thread really reveals is that this front office sucks at building bullpens. They have their beloved “process” that produces poor results but that doesn’t matter because the “process” was good.