Burn Bright, Fade Fast: Remember Addison Reed Before You Pay a Reliever

[Cody Christie]

The Minnesota Twins have rarely been willing to make significant financial commitments to free-agent relievers. Over the years, the organization has generally preferred short-term contracts, minor-league signings, internal options and trades when trying to improve its bullpen.

There was one notable exception in January 2018. Coming off a playoff appearance, the Twins signed right-handed reliever Addison Reed to a two-year, $16.75 million contract. It was an unprecedented investment for the franchise, representing a significant commitment to a pitcher who had established himself as one of baseball's more reliable bullpen arms.

Unfortunately, the deal did not work out as Minnesota had hoped. Reed struggled during his first season, injuries derailed his second, and he never pitched in another major-league game. As the Twins consider how aggressively to invest in their bullpen, Reed's brief time in Minnesota offers a useful lesson about the risks of committing multiple years to relief pitchers.

Why the Twins Invested in Addison Reed

When Minnesota signed Reed, there were plenty of reasons to believe he could help stabilize its bullpen. Reed was 29 years old and already had seven seasons of major-league experience. He had pitched for the Chicago White Sox, Arizona Diamondbacks, New York Mets, and Boston Red Sox, recording 125 saves and a 3.40 ERA across his first 402 2/3 innings.

His performance in 2017 made him particularly appealing. Reed began the season with the Mets before being traded to Boston at the deadline. Across both clubs, he posted a 2.84 ERA in 76 innings, striking out 76 batters while issuing only 15 walks. He also converted 19 of his 21 save opportunities with New York.

Reed had been remarkably durable, too. He appeared in 157 games between 2016 and 2017, leading the major leagues in appearances over that span. His ability to handle a heavy workload was an important part of his appeal to a Minnesota team looking to improve its relief corps.

The Twins had already signed veteran closer Fernando Rodney and left-handed reliever Zach Duke that offseason, but Reed represented the most significant commitment of the three. Minnesota envisioned him working in a high-leverage setup role ahead of Rodney while providing another option to close games if necessary.

The team had a clear reason to prioritize the bullpen. Minnesota relievers ranked 20th in the majors with a 4.40 ERA in 2017 and weren’t any better in terms of FIP (4.50, 23rd) or xFIP (4.49, 22nd).

On paper, the signing made sense. Reed was still relatively young, had an extensive track record of success, and offered the kind of strikeout ability the Twins needed. The organization was not paying for a brief breakout from an unproven pitcher. It was investing in someone who had been effective and durable for several seasons.

A Disappointing First Season in Minnesota

Reed's first year with the Twins quickly became a disappointment. He opened the 2018 season looking like the reliever Minnesota had hoped to acquire. Through his first 20 appearances, he recorded a 2.42 ERA, suggesting he could become a dependable option in the late innings.

The results deteriorated from there. Over his next 21 appearances, Reed posted a 7.71 ERA. His fastball velocity declined, opposing hitters made more consistent contact, and he struggled to put away batters at the rate he had in previous seasons.

The Twins placed Reed on the injured list in July because of right triceps tightness. He returned later that month, but the time away did not restore his earlier effectiveness. He continued to struggle, and his role became less important as the season progressed. 

Reed finished the year with a 4.50 ERA across 55 appearances and 56 innings. He posted an 18.2 K%, a significant drop from the 29.9 K% he recorded in 76 innings the previous season. Those numbers represented a difficult return on the Twins' investment. Minnesota had paid for a reliable late-inning arm, but Reed became a pitcher the club could not consistently trust in important situations.

The contract still had another year remaining, however, giving the organization an opportunity to see whether he could rebound.

Year Two Never Got Off the Ground

Reed's second season in Minnesota was even more disappointing because he never returned to the major-league club. A left thumb sprain delayed his start to the 2019 season, and he began the year on the injured list. He eventually went to Triple-A Rochester on a rehabilitation assignment in May, but his outings did not provide much reason for optimism.

In five minor-league appearances, Reed allowed 13 hits, eight runs, and four home runs in just five innings. The Twins designated him for assignment on May 16 and released him five days later. He never appeared in a major-league game again.  Minnesota had guaranteed $16.75 million with the expectation that Reed would help anchor its bullpen for two seasons. Instead, the club received a disappointing first year and no major-league production in the second.

Buyer Beware: Relievers Can Burn Bright and Fade Away

Reed's experience illustrates one of the biggest challenges of spending money on relief pitching. A reliever can look like an exceptionally safe investment right up until the moment his performance changes.

Bullpen pitchers often work in shorter bursts than starters, but their workloads can be demanding. They may be asked to pitch on consecutive days, handle high-leverage situations, and perform with little margin for error. A small decline in velocity or command can quickly turn a dependable arm into a liability.

Reed had demonstrated both effectiveness and durability before signing with Minnesota. His 2017 season was particularly strong, and his recent history suggested he could handle a substantial workload. Yet those qualities did not protect the Twins from a sudden decline.

The lesson is not that teams should never sign relievers to multi-year contracts. Bullpens are essential to postseason success, and clubs sometimes need to spend money to acquire pitchers capable of handling the most important innings. A reliable closer or setup man can be worth a substantial investment when everything goes according to plan.

The challenge is determining how much security a team should provide at a position with so much uncertainty. Guaranteed years can become expensive quickly when a pitcher loses velocity, struggles with command, or suffers an injury. A deal that looks reasonable when signed can become a burden before it reaches its second season.

For the Twins, Reed's contract helps explain the organization's long-standing preference for shorter commitments to free-agent relievers. It also shows why a player's recent statistics and workload cannot be the only factors in evaluating a potential signing.

The Takeaway for Minnesota

Reed's time with the Twins is a reminder that even an established reliever can become an expensive disappointment. Minnesota made a logical investment in January 2018, targeting a pitcher with a strong résumé who seemed capable of addressing a clear roster weakness. The results never matched the expectations.

That experience should not prevent the Twins from pursuing significant bullpen upgrades. Building a competitive relief corps requires a willingness to take calculated risks, particularly when a team needs dependable options in the late innings.

However, Reed's contract demonstrates why those risks require careful consideration. A two-year commitment can provide stability when a pitcher maintains his effectiveness, but it can also leave a team paying for production that disappears almost immediately.

As the Twins look to construct their next competitive roster, the goal should be to invest in the bullpen without assuming that past performance guarantees future results. Reed arrived as one of the most accomplished relievers the franchise had ever signed. His departure offered a lasting reminder that, with bullpen arms, even the most promising investment can burn bright and fade away.

---

Should the Twins sign another reliever to a multi-year deal this offseason? Leave a comment and start the discussion.

Image courtesy of Brad Rempel, IMAGN IMAGES via Reuters Connect

View full article

[DJL44]

You don’t have to just look at examples for the Twins. Look at the big contracts given out to free agent relievers over the past few off-seasons. Over half of them have been complete disasters with nothing to show for the money. The rest have just been overpriced to varying degrees.

[Jeff K]

Taking no chances = no playoffs.  You have to weigh risk vs. reward; but you can't always be risk adverse.

[DJL44]

13 minutes ago, Jeff K said:

Taking no chances = no playoffs.  You have to weigh risk vs. reward; but you can't always be risk adverse.

Relief pitcher free agents pay off about as well as scratch off lottery tickets.

[Fatbat]

I would argue that Reed’s signing was actually successful. It brought talent to a team that needed exactly what he had.  ‘18 started out great and we may never learn what really happened after his first season.  I would be interested in knowing if it was his body that couldn't handle the game any longer or if it was more a mental block from his first significant injury and its subsequent recovery issues. 
Either way, he was a great risk/reward guy and it was a contract type that should be used again. Sign guys in their prime, at the top of their game. 2year contracts are never bad. 
The recent Twins have waaaay more bad contracts signed for guys past their prime that have resulted in a mediocre team. Year after year.  

[mikelink45]

In this age of overuse, it is really dangerous to trade successful RP like Duran who we know and is still on a positive projection.  We know how they were used.  With 3 -4 RP used every game the damage to arms and shoulders in inevitable.  In this WS I watched Aaron Ashby control the games, but wonder how his body will react to such use next year.   

It is an argument for developing your own, but when you do not have the talent to develop top RPs then you have to take a risk and sign someone with a good track record.  Where are the analytics on usage, age, durability?

[TNtwins85]

1 hour ago, Jeff K said:

Taking no chances = no playoffs.  You have to weigh risk vs. reward; but you can't always be risk adverse.

Exactly. For a team that needs to create a strength the bullpen can be the one had. As an advocate for making a splash with Morejon in roughly the same number of years Morejon has pitched roughly 200 less games and 150 less innings. Even after San Diego rode him hard this year to the tune of 80 something innings he’s innings. There’s never a guarantee for any free agent unless you’re getting a Soto or Ohtani. The bullpen is a way to meaningfully improve for less years and less money with a guy that’s your closer for 3 years. Risk=reward. Mediocrity =Mediocrity

[terrydactyls]

3 minutes ago, mikelink45 said:

It is an argument for developing your own, but when you do not have the talent to develop top RPs then you have to take a risk and sign someone with a good track record.  Where are the analytics on usage, age, durability?

I'm sure someone can compile analytics to prove the impact is whatever you want it to be.  I was a part of a company that supplied data analysts to the Pentagon.  When we had a new contract meeting a client, one of the first questions we would ask is "what do you want the statistics to prove?"  

[Linus]

So we are using one example to form our philosophy on next year’s pen? 

[Fatbat]

4 minutes ago, Linus said:

So we are using one example to form our philosophy on next year’s pen? 

Probably not but the Twins need 3 reliable high end guys that they don't have in house if they want an elite bullpen.  Zoll should take a huge swing or 2 in FAgency.

[MeleMouth]

1 hour ago, Jeff K said:

Taking no chances = no playoffs.  You have to weigh risk vs. reward; but you can't always be risk adverse.

What is your data for this assertion?

None of the Rays, Brewers, or Guardians sign expensive free agent relievers and they make the playoffs regularly. If anything, they tend to do the opposite, which is trade their relievers as they get close to free agency.

Of 2026's free agent relievers, only four of the twenty most expensive AAV signings pitched as relievers for playoff teams (Iglesias, Suarez, Phillips, and Matz), and two of those were pitchers who re-upped with their 2025 teams (Iglesias, Phillips).

One other free agent reliever pitched in the playoffs (Martinez), but he was mostly a starter.

Of the twenty largest AAV's for relievers who switched teams to pitch as relievers, only two (Suarez and Matz) pitched as relievers in the playoffs. Suarez was 4th and Matz was 15h among AAVs. Also, Armstrong and Newcomb also pitched in the playoffs, after receiving the 21st and 23nd highest AAV among free agent relievers in 2026.

The free agent reliever who received the 12th highest AAV, Dominguez, did actually sign with a team that made the playoffs, but he was dumped mid-season, so he didn't pitch in the playoffs.

If two out of 20 free agent relievers who switch teams actually pitch as relievers in the playoffs, that would be a 10% chance of success, which is a lot of risk for little reward. In combination with the fact that signing free agent relievers is rarely done by several playoff teams, particularly for high AAVs, your apparent thesis - that it is necessary to take a chance on expensive free agent relievers in order to make the playoffs - is incorrect.

[DJL44]

27 minutes ago, MeleMouth said:

your apparent thesis - that it is necessary to take a chance on expensive free agent relievers in order to make the playoffs - is incorrect.

There is more evidence to support the opposite. Focusing your free agency spending on relief pitching is a great way to guarantee failure.

[MeleMouth]

25 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

There is more evidence to support the opposite. Focusing your free agency spending on relief pitching is a great way to guarantee failure.

I would be interested in researching two other hypotheses of when it could be worthwhile to sign free agent relievers, but that's for another day.

Hypothesis #1: it's worthwhile to sign free agent relievers when you're rebuilding with an otherwise very low payroll and you want to support developing starters while also considering the relievers to be mid-season trade candidates.

Hypothesis #2: it's worthwhile to sign free agent relievers when you already have All-Stars throughout your line-up and starting rotation and have extra funds to lock down another inning or two (Dodgers).

[bean5302]

22 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

There is more evidence to support the opposite. Focusing your free agency spending on relief pitching is a great way to guarantee failure.

I mean... that's true if the team is the Twins and they have a dozen question marks on the roster beyond the bullpen. I think the reliever results are a lot better than you're saying they are, but most teams don't have 5+ holes they need to fill in the bullpen, and most teams don't focus on bullpen issues when the rest of the team is a bunch of holes.

[Riverbrian]

The problem is putting yourself in a position where you’re forced to spend heavy money on relievers. The Twins put themselves in this corner, and it's a dangerous place to be because relief pitching is incredibly volatile year-to-year.

However... looking at where we are right now... we have much more pressing needs.

The bullpen cannot be the priority until our biggest roster flaws are fixed first. A front-line starting pitcher and a massive, impactful bat in the lineup have to be the top two priorities. 

 

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, MeleMouth said:

I would be interested in researching two other hypotheses of when it could be worthwhile to sign free agent relievers, but that's for another day.

Hypothesis #1: it's worthwhile to sign free agent relievers when you're rebuilding with an otherwise very low payroll and you want to support developing starters while also considering the relievers to be mid-season trade candidates.

Hypothesis #2: it's worthwhile to sign free agent relievers when you already have All-Stars throughout your line-up and starting rotation and have extra funds to lock down another inning or two (Dodgers).

But Hypothesis 1 is not playing in the high end relief market. That’s multi-year 8 figure contracts. I’m fine with them spending on a couple $5M relievers after they allocate the rest of the budget on better purchases.

[Riverbrian]

The 2025 Twins bullpen wasn't built on expensive free agents. It was built by getting them ready internally. 

We traded for Duran and then developed him. Jax... Varland... Sands. through our system. 

The Red Sox bullpen was the best in baseball last season. They signed Chapman but the rest was getting players ready for the job. Weissert was acquired as part of package of players in the Verdugo trade. Whitlock was a rule 5. Bernandino was a waiver sign much like our Gomez. Bello was pulled from the starter pool and he transitioned fairly quickly. 

 

 

[MeleMouth]

3 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

The problem is putting yourself in a position where you’re forced to spend heavy money on relievers. The Twins put themselves in this corner, and it's a dangerous place to be because relief pitching is incredibly volatile year-to-year.

However... looking at where we are right now... we have much more pressing needs.

The bullpen cannot be the priority until our biggest roster flaws are fixed first. A front-line starting pitcher and a massive, impactful bat in the lineup have to be the top two priorities. 

 

You identified what is needed to improve the ceiling of the team to being truly competitive. Perhaps even more important for the floor is to also get a decent #1 or #2 catcher.

Elsewhere, I have written that, for the 2027 bullpen, a solution would be to move Lopez and Ober into it.

[Riverbrian]

1 minute ago, MeleMouth said:

You identified what is needed to improve the ceiling of the team to being truly competitive. Perhaps even more important for the floor is to also get a decent #1 or #2 catcher.

Elsewhere, I have written that, for the 2027 bullpen, a solution would be to move Lopez and Ober into it.

We agree on a lot of things.

Catcher though... That spot is like the bullpen in terms of prioritization. 

[Cris E]

All I know is that no matter what happens, next fall TD will be covered when it comes to second guessing the front office. They don't spend enough. They don't spend on our guys. They spent on the wrong guys. They paid for relievers. Does that about cover it? Wait, I guess we still have the ghost of Ervin Santana to invoke before they sign a starting pitcher.  

The roster is turning over and there are gaps in what the system is providing right now: a SS and the OFs have finally arrived, but still no 1B,  a wait for one of the catchers to step up, and a lot of AAA SP trying to make the jump to the MLB rotation. Somewhere in there you skim off the ones that aren't going to make it and direct them to the pen, but recently there's been too much dreaming on having everyone in the rotation. Coaches have stats on second and third time through the order and can tell who can adjust in-game, so it shouldn't be hard to identify these guys. Same with the injured ones that could benefit from lighter usage, We used to do it well, but somehow lost the string. 

For the most part very few top prospects come to pro ball as relievers. Top prospects are starters, and any brand new reliever is certainly coming from a college program. A few years back they drafted a few of those hard throwing college guys and it turns out all their arms exploded. So now we draft a lot of college arms that have survived hard use without exploding and it turns out those guys are exploding too. Next perhaps we draft high schoolers and international arms that don't ever get treated badly and see how that goes? Well it turns out we have, and they also blow up. But some seem to survive no matter if you hold them like tiny little Raya-shaped eggs,  only use them in a rigid four day pattern (Adams and Kline) or jerk them all over like Morris or Rojas. It seems hard to say what works, but that's kind of the problem the Twins have been having for the past few years. Lots of guys that get close but few closing the deal. Perhaps the new MLB coach's fastball-first theology breaks some things loose. Regardless, invoking one contract as some sort of object lesson is wrong. We're not growing our own right now, so we need to shop the market and it's not a certain thing, Too bad, sucks to suck,  do better, etc.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

31 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

The 2025 Twins bullpen wasn't built on expensive free agents. It was built by getting them ready internally. 

We traded for Duran and then developed him. Jax... Varland... Sands. through our system. 

The Red Sox bullpen was the best in baseball last season. They signed Chapman but the rest was getting players ready for the job. Weissert was acquired as part of package of players in the Verdugo trade. Whitlock was a rule 5. Bernandino was a waiver sign much like our Gomez. Bello was pulled from the starter pool and he transitioned fairly quickly. 

 

 

That’s my frustration, the bullpen has to be invested in. Either development or trade, or free agency…. They need 3 better relievers just to stop the bleeding.

after trading away 5 relievers at the deadline, we watched DFA fodder in Aug 2025 rather than developing marginal starters getting converted into short inning relievers.

then in 2026 we watched DFA fodder again until the team traded for established relievers, but again, only Morris and Adams, when they still needed 3 more arms in the pen and who knows what the heck they were doing with Rojas?!

and so here we are again… 

do they have bigger fish to fry? Absolutely! 4/5 of the rotation hits free agency in a year and who knows what they’ll get from Ober, Lopez and Ryan… 1B is a mess, DH might be Buck, and 2nd is currently owned by a guy breaking out at 30 years old… let alone C being manned by a 32 year old unraveling before us and a guy DFAd and passed through waivers 3 times in a year. All more important than bullpen.