5 Reasons Why the Twins’ Front Office Avoids Spending on Relief Pitchers

[Cody Christie]

Minnesota’s bullpen is running on fumes, mainly since young pitchers comprise most of the starting rotation. Do the team’s bullpen issues stem from the front office refusing to spend money on relievers?

Image courtesy of Brad Rempel-USA TODAY Sports

In the realm of baseball strategy, allocating resources—particularly financial ones—often dictates a team’s approach to building a competitive roster. For the Minnesota Twins, led by front-office executives Derek Falvey and Thad Levine, there has been a noticeable pattern: a reluctance to invest heavily in bullpen arms. This strategy has sparked debate among fans and analysts alike, but it is grounded in sound reasoning and understanding the nature of relief pitching.

1. The Volatility of Relievers
Relief pitchers are arguably the most unpredictable position group in baseball. A reliever who was dominant one season can become ineffective the next due to factors such as injury, mechanical issues, or a drop in velocity. This volatility is well-documented across MLB, where the performance of relief pitchers often fluctuates dramatically year over year.

Falvey and Levine seem to recognize that paying top dollar for a bullpen arm does not guarantee a reliable return on investment. In contrast to starting pitchers, who typically have more stable performance metrics over more extended periods, relievers’ small sample sizes can lead to misleading statistics. A few bad outings can severely impact a reliever’s overall numbers, making assessing their actual talent level challenging.

2. The High-Risk Nature of Long-Term Contracts
Committing large sums of money to relievers also poses significant financial risks. Long-term contracts for relievers often end up as sunk costs if the player underperforms or gets injured. For example, injuries or a decline in performance can hinder a team's financial flexibility, making it difficult to address other needs. The Twins’ front office appears to favor flexibility and adaptability, preferring to avoid these potential financial albatrosses.

3. Development and Bargain Hunting
Instead of pursuing expensive free agents, Falvey and Levine have focused on developing their bullpen talent in-house and finding value in under-the-radar acquisitions or minor-league signings. This approach allows the Twins to maintain a steady flow of capable relievers without the high costs associated with marquee bullpen signings.

The Twins' front office has demonstrated a keen eye for identifying undervalued arms—players who may have struggled elsewhere or were overlooked due to poor surface-level statistics. By leveraging advanced analytics, the Twins have found pitchers with hidden potential, whether through minor-league signings, waiver claims, or low-cost trades. These pitchers often have a specific skill set, such as high strikeout rates or inducing ground balls, which the Twins can optimize for success.

4. Leveraging Depth and Versatility
Another benefit of avoiding significant investments in relievers is the ability to build depth and versatility within the bullpen. A roster filled with multiple reliable options rather than one or two highly paid stars allows for more strategic maneuvering. The Twins can mix and match based on matchups, ride the hot hand, and manage workloads to keep arms fresh throughout the season. This depth-based approach has shown to be effective in maintaining bullpen performance over the grueling 162-game season.

5. The Evolution of Bullpen Strategy
Baseball strategy is evolving, and the traditional closer role is becoming less defined. Modern teams, including the Twins, increasingly rely on bullpen flexibility, where any reliever could be called upon in high-leverage situations, regardless of inning. This approach places less emphasis on having a singular, dominant arm and more on having a group of capable arms that can handle critical situations.

While some fans may wish to see the Twins make a splash in the bullpen market, Falvey and Levine’s approach reflects a deep understanding of the inherent volatility and financial risks associated with relievers. By focusing on development, scouting, and analytics, they have crafted a bullpen strategy that emphasizes flexibility, depth, and cost-effectiveness. In a league where overpaying for relievers can hamstring a team’s finances and hinder long-term success, the Twins’ cautious approach may be a wise blueprint for sustained competitiveness.

Do the Twins need to spend more on the bullpen? Can their bullpen strategy continue to work? Leave a COMMENT and start the discussion. 

View full article

[Eris]

Adding to the article, I think there is a tendency to overuse the most effective RP. It is very rare to have a relief pitcher with greater that 70 appearances for multiple seasons in a a row and maintain effectiveness. 

[LambchoP]

While I agree we shouldn't spend huge or long term money on relievers, that doesn't mean we don't need to spend SOME. I mean, if we're not spending on starters, what kind of pitching are you going to get. While a 10-15 million dollar per year relief arm is never going to happen, why not 3 different couple million dollar arms. Spread the money out a bit and build depth. But building almost an entire pen with cast offs, injury recovery guys, bargain bin release waiver wire types is not going to cut it. Sure, we got lucky once in awhile with someone like Brock Stewart, but most of the time you'll get as advertised. And we've seen what a waiver wire bullpen gets you this year. We've been too top heavy all year. 2-4 guys you can count on at the top, otherwise, everyone else is probably going to cost you games. This makes you overuse your top guys, they wear down. Get hurt or underperform. Now, I do think we could have a solid pen next year with just a small handful of additions 

[LambchoP]

2025 pen:

Duran, Jax

Alcala, Stewart, Sands

Varland, Topa, Henriquez 

Maybe Funderburk or Winder

2-4 free agent signings. Definitely a lefty.

Possibles at some point:

Canterino, Prelipp, Morris, Raya

Bouschly, Winder, Headrick. Any other minor league pitchers doing well.

[chpettit19]

It's pretty simple. They don't spend on bullpen arms because they believe they can survive until September with cast offs and minimum salary guys as they find their 14 best arms that they'll fit into roles down the stretch. They've actually been rather successful with it the last couple years as their 2nd half bullpen numbers have been good. We'll see if they can add Winder and Varland (best guess) over the next handful of days and save the crumbling pen. But that's been pretty clearly their strategy for a number of years now. Survive until the end when they put in their "real" pen.

[Mark G]

"5 Reasons Why the Twins’ Front Office Avoids Spending on Relief Pitchers"

That is the premise we begin with; that the FO has at least these 5 reasons they avoid spending on RP's.  And they probably are the reasons, but are they good reasons?  Cody seems to think so, and I know he knows what he is talking about, but are ALL FIVE reasons good ones?  As for me, I concur with 1, 2, and 4.  But bargain hunting has gotten us where we are today.  And pretending that your pen is interchangeable, and most, if not all of your guys can do the job when called upon, is a nice thought, but for most teams it just isn't realistic.  See Twins pen.  

There has been an evolution of bullpen strategy, but primarily because starters do not pitch their games very often anymore and the pens are having to pitch somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% of the innings in a season.  That being the case, I would think that putting your money into a solid bullpen would be a top priority.  Come October we are going to have a battle of the bullpens in a number of games; I sure hope they prove me (and others) wrong.  

[mikelink45]

In an era where BP are now carrying the team through 4 innings a game I suggest that pushing starters to seven innings like they used to do is a smarter strategy.  If they give up a walk or hit in the 6th they are gone - ridiculous.  They are not going to throw no-hitters.

Quote

The Twins' front office has demonstrated a keen eye for identifying undervalued arms—players who may have struggled elsewhere or were overlooked due to poor surface-level statistics.

Let's truly examine this - Jackson, Duarte, Okert, Blewett, Staumont, Henley, Ortega, Sanchez, Cotton, Minaya, Strotman, Vallimont, Law, Chalmers and Floro (both traded and released) all released and no MLB teams grabbing them. Then there are the trades for Lopez and Richards.

Now we count on Boushley who we released July 14. 

And we count on injury prone starters - DeSclacfani, Paddock. Mahle or we think we can resurrect pitchers like Archer, Bundy, Happ, Gant, Shoemaker...

 I went through transactions for 2024 - April 2021.  I left out some names I have no memory of.  

Of course other teams whiff too, but I do not like being a homer and thinking our guys are always better or smarter.  They are trying.  They have their own philosophy and follow it.  The BP is a place where I fail to see the smarts.  We lost out on players like Gil and Cano - and all teams do.  So lets just say the FO has done some really good things to balance with the dumb decisions.  Because I could do this with position players too. 

[tony&rodney]

51 minutes ago, LambchoP said:

2025 pen:

Duran, Jax

Alcala, Stewart, Sands

Varland, Topa, Henriquez 

Maybe Funderburk or Winder

2-4 free agent signings. Definitely a lefty.

Possibles at some point:

Canterino, Prelipp, Morris, Raya

Bouschly, Winder, Headrick. Any other minor league pitchers doing well.

Do you think Stewart and Topa will be brought back? They will likely require more money than their realistic projections. There will be some guys added via trades, promotions from milb, and a few pitchers signed to Spring Training invites. Pitchers like Jax, Duran, Alcala, and Sands are a fair top for a bullpen. Looking around the league at the top bullpens, we can see it often takes a few unknown names and good health.

[LambchoP]

3 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

Do you think Stewart and Topa will be brought back? They will likely require more money than their realistic projections. There will be some guys added via trades, promotions from milb, and a few pitchers signed to Spring Training invites. Pitchers like Jax, Duran, Alcala, and Sands are a fair top for a bullpen. Looking around the league at the top bullpens, we can see it often takes a few unknown names and good health.

Stewart and Topa are still under contract with pretty reasonable salaries, so they'll be back. Falvine needs to finish filling up the pen with competent arms though. If we have to rely on three guys all year again we'll be in trouble. Both Stewart and Topa are going to be coming off serious injuries and lost seasons, so ownership should not count on them to save us.

[chpettit19]

Can we make a note of this bullpen situation so when the Twins bring in a bunch of veteran journeyman, 1-year-wonder relievers this offseason people don't start claiming they have the best bullpen in baseball again?

[karcherd]

What is the fascination with Stewart and Topa in thinking they will help this bullpen.  Stewart has never pitched more than 30 innings in a season so counting on him to be a fixture in the bullpen is foolhardy.  Topa is in his 30's and has had one good season, again hoping he can be a fixture is doing a lot of hoping. 

Get somebody that has a proven track record and can actually help the bullpen.

 

[saviking]

Well, next year we are stacked at position playes, stacked with starting pitching. The bread crumbs they let us spend in the offsean needs to go to relievers. 

After complaining about all the money we spent on Correa all of last year I promised I would not say anything this year unless he gave me reason to. Which he did not. But his lack of health is still a concern and he's only getting older. 

And I also blasted the front office all last year for not giving Larnach a fair chance .. 

 

[karcherd]

the traditional closer role is becoming less defined.  This is a narrative that keeps being pushed and it is not true.  The winning teams have a true closer and they pitch them primarily in the 9th inning that is what the stats say.  Not everyone can close games, it is a mindset along with the skills, remember Ron Davis.  

[Fire Dan Gladden]

BP problems are not solely a Twins problem.  Organizations everywhere struggle with this, especially when you get past the setup and closer guys.  BP3, BP4, etc. are a yearly (monthly, sometimes daily) balance of money, luck, 40-man-rosters, health, and experience.

[Whitey333]

Congrats Cody.  You have earned your PR bonus from the Twins Front Office.  You can twist things so well to make the Front Office look competent. Have you watched much Twins baseball since the all star break?  This bullpen, and much of this team, is only proving they are a train wreck and not ready fir prime time.  This FO created this mess.  Does anyone believe this team will do anything in the playoffs?  Will they even make the playoffs?  The Twins propaganda machine just keeps pumping it out.

[Karbo]

The FO has done a pretty good job drafting some talent. Most of the "top tier" talent has been position players, but they have kinda struck gold in the later rounds with some starters. So why do they swing and miss so badly on BP arms? So many people were bragging up this pen at the beginning of the season, but I just couldn't drink that kool-aid. The signings over the off season were awful, and very questionable IMO. No previous records of sustained success, injury prone relievers that should never have been counted on.

[Brandon]

coming into this season the rotation was 6 starters deep.  I suspect if the budget wasn't such an issue we would have signed a reliever to a contract as we didn't have many issues coming into the season.  a hitter, bench and bullpen maybe a number 5 starter since we didn't know Woods-Richardson was going to be good this season, but we got DeSclafani before he was injured.  I said all that to say we didn't pay for a reliever this offseason because of the budget.  We aren't going to sign a 25+ million starter after signing a 21 million starter but 1 reliever at 8-10 million doesn't break the bank on a 160 million budget.  on a 125 million with fixed costs designed for a 150 million budget does.  

I don't think paying for a reliever is their preferred method of finding them either, but I don't think they rule it out either.  We did go into this season with lots of assumed depth.  maybe letting Bowman walk was not a good idea this last time.  

[Trov]

4 hours ago, karcherd said:

 

Get somebody that has a proven track record and can actually help the bullpen.

 

Part of the point of the article is that there is no such thing as a "proven track record" for pens that you can count on.  The last significant investment we made for a pen guy was Addison Reed.  At least FA wise, and he had a proven track record.  He pitched 6 seasons prior to signing with us and was pretty darn good setup guy.  We signed him to a 2 year deal and was terrible we cut him and no one picked him up since. He was only 29.  Several other examples of "proven track record" pen guys that just fall apart one year.  Sometimes they bounce back, but you never know when. Take Taylor Rogers, he had 4 great years for us, then 2020 he was not good at all, and 2021 he bounced back did okay, not great.  Then we traded him 2022, where his first month he was amazing, and then fell apart leading to a playoff contending team to trade him away, where he did even worse.  He still got a good deal from his prior success and had some okay time in SF, but they are willing to cut him loose to whoever will take his 12 mil a year, because his WPA is negative this year. 

Point is you cannot ever count on a pen guy to be great.  Only very few were ever almost always great and they are in HOF now.  Even the saves leader last year and this year for AL, Clase has been the best he ever has this year, but last year he led in saves but had a negative WPA because he blew a ton of saves. 

Josh Hader was lights out for years, then in 2022 had terrible year.  He is back on track doing amazing again.  However, you never know when a pen guy will just be terrible or great.  It is a huge gamble.  You can try to pay big for a "proven track record" but normally that will just be a crap shoot.  Sometimes it blows up in a year where they did well most of the year then fell apart. 

[USAFChief]

Good to great bullpen arms are no more unreliable than good to great starters. 

 

[Finlander]

The Twins cried "poor" immediately after the season ended last fall, and they followed through by avoiding signings that were beyond their TV deal damaged budget. They doubled down on their pauper status by shunning any deals at the deadline to improve the team's chances of a playoff push. When it was announced that MLB would be distributing millions of dollars to teams that were adversely affected by difficult TV deals, including the Twins, they still stood pat. Apparently the millions will disappear into ownership pockets. Otherwise someone like recent DFA Taylor Rogers might be added to help the pen.

It seems that a similar article of reasons (or excuses) could have been written about the Twins' unwillingness to invest in starting pitching, although the deals for Lopez and Dobnak contradict that somewhat. But look at what KC did this past pring, which MN couldn't, or wouldn't. Wacha and Lugo. That's the main reason why KC is up there challenging Cleveland for the division.

[Finlander]

My post above just illustrates why many fans are frustrated, and it is conceivable that Twins players are also disheartened by the lack of roster improvement this season. I am concerned that this lack of urgency to improve the team will make Minnesota a less desirable option for free agent players in the future. But maybe it's a moot point if we can't even afford them in the first place.

[karcherd]

51 minutes ago, Trov said:

Part of the point of the article is that there is no such thing as a "proven track record" for pens that you can count on.  The last significant investment we made for a pen guy was Addison Reed.  At least FA wise, and he had a proven track record.  He pitched 6 seasons prior to signing with us and was pretty darn good setup guy.  We signed him to a 2 year deal and was terrible we cut him and no one picked him up since. He was only 29.  Several other examples of "proven track record" pen guys that just fall apart one year.  Sometimes they bounce back, but you never know when. Take Taylor Rogers, he had 4 great years for us, then 2020 he was not good at all, and 2021 he bounced back did okay, not great.  Then we traded him 2022, where his first month he was amazing, and then fell apart leading to a playoff contending team to trade him away, where he did even worse.  He still got a good deal from his prior success and had some okay time in SF, but they are willing to cut him loose to whoever will take his 12 mil a year, because his WPA is negative this year. 

Point is you cannot ever count on a pen guy to be great.  Only very few were ever almost always great and they are in HOF now.  Even the saves leader last year and this year for AL, Clase has been the best he ever has this year, but last year he led in saves but had a negative WPA because he blew a ton of saves. 

Josh Hader was lights out for years, then in 2022 had terrible year.  He is back on track doing amazing again.  However, you never know when a pen guy will just be terrible or great.  It is a huge gamble.  You can try to pay big for a "proven track record" but normally that will just be a crap shoot.  Sometimes it blows up in a year where they did well most of the year then fell apart. 

So instead they keep signing pitchers who have had one good year or they think they can magically fix when no one else can.  I don't think their methodology is working, that is when you try something different.

[Linus]

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

Good and great bullpen arms are no more unreliable than good to great starters. 

 

Thank you. This whole story of relievers are so volatile and risky that you should never invest in them drives me nuts. You know what else is risky?  Having a bullpen filled with crappy arms. You saved money but you accepted performance risk. You didn’t waste money and oh by the way your pen sucks. If you want to say the back end of pens are volatile- fine but that is because they are almost exclusively bad pitchers so of course they are volatile. 

[USAFChief]

9 minutes ago, Linus said:

Thank you. This whole story of relievers are so volatile and risky that you should never invest in them drives me nuts. You know what else is risky?  Having a bullpen filled with crappy arms. You saved money but you accepted performance risk. You didn’t waste money and oh by the way your pen sucks. If you want to say the back end of pens are volatile- fine but that is because they are almost exclusively bad pitchers so of course they are volatile. 

"Volatile" and "bad" are also sometimes substitutes for looking at small sample size error.

 

[bean5302]

Personally, I think the Twins typically don't spend on bullpen arms because they feel it's the worst return on investment. I've also long held the belief Falvey can't focus on priorities and gets distracted by "shiny things." There's just no money left after he's done signing 37 platoon bats and utility guys.

It'll be interesting to see what happens starting in 2026 as Jax and Duran are likely going to start getting very expensive. Next year, they'll probably be in that $3-5MM range each as Arb 1, and the Twins were willing to pay that kinda scratch to Thielbar.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

8 hours ago, Mark G said:

"5 Reasons Why the Twins’ Front Office Avoids Spending on Relief Pitchers"

That is the premise we begin with; that the FO has at least these 5 reasons they avoid spending on RP's.  And they probably are the reasons, but are they good reasons?  Cody seems to think so, and I know he knows what he is talking about, but are ALL FIVE reasons good ones?  As for me, I concur with 1, 2, and 4.  But bargain hunting has gotten us where we are today.  And pretending that your pen is interchangeable, and most, if not all of your guys can do the job when called upon, is a nice thought, but for most teams it just isn't realistic.  See Twins pen.  

There has been an evolution of bullpen strategy, but primarily because starters do not pitch their games very often anymore and the pens are having to pitch somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% of the innings in a season.  That being the case, I would think that putting your money into a solid bullpen would be a top priority.  Come October we are going to have a battle of the bullpens in a number of games; I sure hope they prove me (and others) wrong.  

I agree, and to expand on this, if 5 were accurate, the FO would have invested significant development resources into solidifying the lower leverage arms. Varland would have been in the bullpen from opening day, and CJ Culpeper (or another lefty starter) would be taking Thielbar’s place on Aug 1 or sooner.

instead relievers are viewed as fungible, which has some Merit until…

[HerbieFan]

Well...they've gotten their money's worth.

[Doctor Wu]

Good article and it covers all the reasons why the front office won't fork out more money for relief pitchers, and most of it I agree with. I think paying big bucks to veteran relief pitchers is most always a fool's game. That said, we clearly needed some reinforcements in the bullpen before the trade deadline and getting another useful arm or two would not have been that expensive. Some might say that quality relief pitchers were in such big demand this season that prices were higher than expected, but that still doesn't excuse the fact that the Twins made only one very lame trade. 

[Trov]

15 hours ago, Linus said:

Thank you. This whole story of relievers are so volatile and risky that you should never invest in them drives me nuts. You know what else is risky?  Having a bullpen filled with crappy arms. You saved money but you accepted performance risk. You didn’t waste money and oh by the way your pen sucks. If you want to say the back end of pens are volatile- fine but that is because they are almost exclusively bad pitchers so of course they are volatile. 

However, if you invest 10 plus million a year on a relief arm, over multiple years, if they are terrible you still need to keep using them because of how much you have paid them.  If you pay them much less it is easier to move on from them.  There is 2 reasons for that, one if they are doing terrible no one will pick them up off waivers or trade for them at what they are getting paid, and if you cut them you pay them anyways and other teams will just pick up for cheap while Twins pay the bill.  Two, if you do keep them on the roster you need to use them no matter how bad they do. 

Right now, Emilio Pagan is getting paid 8 mil after his not good seasons for the Twins.  He is not being used in high leverage situations and basically a 6th to 7th inning guy or big leads one way or other inning eater.  The reason I bring this up, is going out and getting vets, even guys like Pagan who has had a couple of good years but mostly not good years and injury issues to fill lower leverage spots will cost several million.  They really are not that much better than going out and grabbing guys like Brock Stewart and hoping you can make them into something good for at least 1 year. 

Investing big into pen arms can pay off, if they all are good, but you can look year after year of big name guys that just fell apart for a year or more.  Some bounce back some do not.  Right now the Mets are paying a ton of money for Edwin Diaz, a guy that was top pen arm in 2023 FA year.  He was coming off of 5 out of 7 good years, and his contract year was just amazing.  He was the best pen FA out there, and Mets paid him like it.  102 over 5 years.  Since, he lost a year because of his celebration at WBC, and this year has negative WPA blowing 6 of 21 saves and a FIP of about 4 with walks up and strikeouts down.  He has done this before and may bounce back, but paying 21 mil for a guy that you cannot count on, but have to keep running out there is a lot. 

He is not the only example I could give but is a very extreme one. Point is, you can invest big in pen arms and may not be in any better space then going for cheaper options.  Yes, this year after the break things have gone terrible, which includes Duran who was one of best relievers in all of baseball last 2 years.  

[Linus]

30 minutes ago, Trov said:

However, if you invest 10 plus million a year on a relief arm, over multiple years, if they are terrible you still need to keep using them because of how much you have paid them.  If you pay them much less it is easier to move on from them.  There is 2 reasons for that, one if they are doing terrible no one will pick them up off waivers or trade for them at what they are getting paid, and if you cut them you pay them anyways and other teams will just pick up for cheap while Twins pay the bill.  Two, if you do keep them on the roster you need to use them no matter how bad they do. 

Right now, Emilio Pagan is getting paid 8 mil after his not good seasons for the Twins.  He is not being used in high leverage situations and basically a 6th to 7th inning guy or big leads one way or other inning eater.  The reason I bring this up, is going out and getting vets, even guys like Pagan who has had a couple of good years but mostly not good years and injury issues to fill lower leverage spots will cost several million.  They really are not that much better than going out and grabbing guys like Brock Stewart and hoping you can make them into something good for at least 1 year. 

Investing big into pen arms can pay off, if they all are good, but you can look year after year of big name guys that just fell apart for a year or more.  Some bounce back some do not.  Right now the Mets are paying a ton of money for Edwin Diaz, a guy that was top pen arm in 2023 FA year.  He was coming off of 5 out of 7 good years, and his contract year was just amazing.  He was the best pen FA out there, and Mets paid him like it.  102 over 5 years.  Since, he lost a year because of his celebration at WBC, and this year has negative WPA blowing 6 of 21 saves and a FIP of about 4 with walks up and strikeouts down.  He has done this before and may bounce back, but paying 21 mil for a guy that you cannot count on, but have to keep running out there is a lot. 

He is not the only example I could give but is a very extreme one. Point is, you can invest big in pen arms and may not be in any better space then going for cheaper options.  Yes, this year after the break things have gone terrible, which includes Duran who was one of best relievers in all of baseball last 2 years.  

Nobody is saying you have to hand out $10 million contracts. There is a large middle ground to be explored. Teams hand out good contracts to starters who bust all the time. Then it’s called a cost of doing business. If it’s a reliever than it’s some sort of brain dead decision that means the gm should be fired (in the Pagan example he probably should be as that signing is from outer space.