Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • Twins History

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

    Addison Reed arrived in Minnesota with an impressive track record, closing experience, and the promise of becoming a key piece of the bullpen. His two-year contract ultimately became a reminder of how quickly things can change for relief pitchers.

    Cody Christie
    Image courtesy of Brad Rempel, IMAGN IMAGES via Reuters Connect

    Twins Video

    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.


    Are you interested in Twins history? Then check out the Minnesota Twins Players Project, a community-driven project to discover and collect great information on every player to wear a Twins uniform!

    View The Players Project

    Follow Twins Daily For Minnesota Twins News & Analysis

    Recent Twins Articles

    Recent Twins Videos


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

    Catcher... This is what they brought Caratini in for. We owe him 10 million and we can't recoup that. I want no further investment in the position. Players rebound all the time.

    He had his best hitting seasons when he was catching 60 games or less.  It seems his contract was more of another miscalculation by Falvey than he earned it.  I don't necessarily want more investment in the position, but it will be a long season with Caratini and whoever is backing him up.  Catcher's historically don't age well so to expect a rebound at age 33 while playing more behind the plate is wishful thinking in my opinion.

    12 minutes ago, HarmonK03 said:

    He had his best hitting seasons when he was catching 60 games or less.  It seems his contract was more of another miscalculation by Falvey than he earned it.  I don't necessarily want more investment in the position, but it will be a long season with Caratini and whoever is backing him up.  Catcher's historically don't age well so to expect a rebound at age 33 while playing more behind the plate is wishful thinking in my opinion.

    I'm not saying he will rebound... he might. Players bounce up and down season to season. Regardless. We bought him and when we signed him... he was a catcher who hit good for a catcher. That's a big distinction and we dropped 14 million on someone who hit good for a catcher and the plan was to backup Jeffers and be the short side 1B for Clemens. It was a terrible plan. 

    Here he is. Sleep in the bed you made. It will be a long season if you don't invest elsewhere. I've used the term punt and I understand that takes guts but... catchers typically don't hit the ball so just ask them to field until Lackey and Tait come in the door. 

    Here's why it's OK to punt the position offensively. The White sox had perhaps the worst hitting in baseball in 2026. The Phillies catchers did not hit the ball. The Yankees catchers didn't hit the ball. The Red Sox, Gaurdians... Didn't hit the ball from behind home plate. The Rays were not strong offensively from the Catching position. The Twins were ranked 6th behind the Rockies. 

    Our 1B position ranked 26th. Spend the money right here. We can punt the catcher position. 

    11 hours ago, Danchat said:

    I agree that signing free agent relievers is risky and should generally be avoided, but is it really worth bailing on the concept entirely because it burned Falvey once? I don't think it's a bad idea to give it a try every once in a while if a reliever is identified as being worth the price.

    Agreed, especially when they haven’t invested into the bullpen enough in other ways.

    22 hours ago, MeleMouth said:

    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.

    You extrapolated quite a bit from my simple comment.  The twins can't be afraid to take chances.  Staying the course isn't going to cut it.  The comment is for the team and organization in general.

    33 minutes ago, Jeff K said:

    You extrapolated quite a bit from my simple comment.  The twins can't be afraid to take chances.  Staying the course isn't going to cut it.  The comment is for the team and organization in general.

    Agreed, but chances should be supported by data. That's the difference between people who make money in Vegas and those who don't. 

    On 11/1/2026 at 7:51 AM, DJL44 said:

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

    Or even high priced relief pitchers pay off about as well as waiver wire and MiLB free agent relief pitchers.

    Which has some logic to it. The castoff pitchers already know they have to constantly tweak, adjust and adapt just to scrape buy and stay in the league. The "big" names are more likely to think what they did last year will work again with their new organization, with their new manager in their new ballpark with their new teammates in their new city and their new role.

    "Big" being in quotation marks because relievers constantly go from heroes to zeros and vice versa.

    6 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

    Or even high priced relief pitchers pay off about as well as waiver wire and MiLB free agent relief pitchers.

    Which has some logic to it. The castoff pitchers already know they have to constantly tweak, adjust and adapt just to scrape buy and stay in the league. The "big" names are more likely to think what they did last year will work again with their new organization, with their new manager in their new ballpark with their new teammates in their new city and their new role.

    "Big" being in quotation marks because relievers constantly go from heroes to zeros and vice versa.

    Random review: in 2022, the Phillies signed the third and thirteenth highest AAV contracts with big name relievers to upgrade their bullpen. Between Corey Knebel ($10M) and Brad Hand ($6M), they got 0.3 fWAR.

    That year's #1 AAV (Braves-Kenley Jansen @ $16M) and #2 (Angels-Raisel Iglesias @ $14.5M) did pitch pretty well, although the vast majority of Iglesias' good results occurred only after he was traded to the Braves mid-season.

    The Angels were aggressive that year and also signed the #4 AAV, Aaron Loup, @ $8.5M. He was also a bad value, at 0.3 fWAR.

    18 hours 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. 

     

     

    If a team were to sign an expesive-ish free agent reliever, this is what you should focus on. Veterans that have performed well on MULTIPLE teams.

    For example, Addison Reed did NOT produce well for multiple teams. For one reason or another, he pitched well for the Mets. In his other stops he ranged from unspectacular to late inning liability. On the other hand, a guy like Tyler Clippard was rarely inspiring, but also  rarely let any team down.

    1 hour ago, Jeff K said:

    You extrapolated quite a bit from my simple comment.  The twins can't be afraid to take chances.  Staying the course isn't going to cut it.  The comment is for the team and organization in general.

    Not with the bullpen. The Twins have hit at an extremely high rate when they transition starters to relievers. The catch being that it typically takes at least a year for the results to show up. Free agency on the other hand - low hit rate for the Twins. And most teams in general. 

    I love watching people trying to justify spending gobs of money on FA pitchers....

    Can anybody tell me where the Twins got Yoendrys Gomez this year? Over the past few years how much have they paid for Danny Coulombe? Brock Stewart?

    Almost all relievers are failed SP. The Twins have a haul of SP4/5 type guys in MiLB. Expect to see a handful of them (Festa?) converted. Find reliable guys that can handle the RP rollercoaster. 

    On 11/1/2026 at 9:09 AM, MeleMouth said:

    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.

    You say that the Rays don’t sign expensive relievers, then use Matz as an example of the high priced relievers that worked. 

    41 minutes ago, old nurse said:

    You say that the Rays don’t sign expensive relievers, then use Matz as an example of the high priced relievers that worked. 

    Of free agent relievers signed in 2026, Matz had the 15th highest AAV @ $7.5M (13th if you count only relievers signed to be relievers). It's up to you whether you call that "expensive" or "high priced." It's definitely less than the eight figures people are bandying about for pitchers like Bednar, Morejon, and Minter.

    Also, to be clear, I said "pitched in the playoffs," not "worked."  In 2026, Matz had 0.0 fWAR and -0.7 bWAR. He pitched in the playoffs because the Rays brought him there, not because he was a crucial part of their success.

    The Rays got a lot more out of the $925,000 they paid for free agent Cam Booser (0.8 fWAR, 1.1 bWAR).

    21 hours ago, Danchat said:

    I agree that signing free agent relievers is risky and should generally be avoided, but is it really worth bailing on the concept entirely because it burned Falvey once? I don't think it's a bad idea to give it a try every once in a while if a reliever is identified as being worth the price.

    Because it burned Falvey once?  No!!! I don't know that I would go so far as to "bail on the concept entirely".  However, high dollar RPs has been the worst free agent investment in baseball.  If they had everything else they needed to be a true contender, it might still make sense but that's not the case.




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...