Relief Pitching/Bullpen Targets?

[BTH]

Who are some of y'all's targets for relief pitching beyond Raisel Iglesias? Everyone always (rightfully) talks about upgrading the bullpen, but who are some relievers in free agency/realistically available in trade you'd like the Angels to pursue in order to upgrade the bullpen?

[BTH]

To begin this thread, I'd say that Corey Knebel has impressed me so far in the playoffs. I have some worries about his health and durability, but he is on the younger side of free agent relievers and his velocity returned this season.

[Hubs]

There's a lot.

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/free-agents/relief-pitcher/

 

[Taylor]

Whoever @Angels 1961 wants, the Angels are guaranteed not to get.

[Capital_Dave]

What if the solution to the Angels' pitching woes can be found in the bullpen instead of on the mound?

It seems like Arte Moreno has an aversion to big contracts for starters.  He hasn't been willing to allow his GMs to match the biggest contracts given to the most coveted pitchers in recent years.  Fine.  Instead of signing 2 pitchers for 9-figure contracts, why not corner the market on elite bullpen arms?  Instead of signing 2 starters for $25-30M per season apiece, sign 5-6 elite relievers for $10M per season apiece (likely on shorter guaranteed contracts)?  Then your rotation could be: Ohtani - Opener - Sandoval - Opener - Suarez - Opener.  I can't remember if the Rays' use of the Opener goes back to the Maddon days, but even if he doesn't have experience managing in that environment, surely this strategy would appeal to Maddon.  And the Angels have enough interesting bullpen arms (Chris Rod, Warren, Barria, Detmers) that this strategy might well work.

[BTH]

20 minutes ago, Capital_Dave said:

Instead of signing 2 pitchers for 9-figure contracts, why not corner the market on elite bullpen arms?  Instead of signing 2 starters for $25-30M per season apiece, sign 5-6 elite relievers for $10M per season apiece (likely on shorter guaranteed contracts)?

So who are these 5-6 elite relievers you want to sign?

That's great in theory, but I'm not sure there are 5-6 elite relievers available in free agency.

[BTH]

21 minutes ago, Capital_Dave said:

I can't remember if the Rays' use of the Opener goes back to the Maddon days, but even if he doesn't have experience managing in that environment, surely this strategy would appeal to Maddon.

It does not go back to the Maddon days.

I'd love this concept, if the Angels could get the adequate relievers to enable it but I don't think that's easy to do.

[Hubs]

The opener idea is terrible.

I can understand investing in the bullpen, but getting an elite starter and 2-3 arms is the best of both worlds.

Relievers are also notoriously unreliable.

[greginpsca]

I do like having 5 good relievers, but not at the expense of the starting rotation. When your relievers are coming into the game in the 3-4th innings every other game, they will lose their effectiveness after a couple of months. Your starting staff needs to consistently get you into the 5-6 inning, if not more, to keep your pen from being overworked. It's all about balance.

[Vlad27Trout27]

Iglesias 

Knebel 

Mchugh

 

[ettin]

The free agent class this year is middle-heavy, with little at the top (elite) and not a lot at the bottom (lottery tickets).

[HanfordGuy]

Yimi Garcia and Brad Boxberger.

[Angels 1961]

1 hour ago, Vlad27Trout27 said:

Iglesias 

Knebel 

Mchugh

 

Graveman

[Taylor]

3 minutes ago, Angels 1961 said:

Graveman

I have a feeling we're going to see his name about 100 more times this off-season.

[Docwaukee]

7 hours ago, Capital_Dave said:

What if the solution to the Angels' pitching woes can be found in the bullpen instead of on the mound?

It seems like Arte Moreno has an aversion to big contracts for starters.  He hasn't been willing to allow his GMs to match the biggest contracts given to the most coveted pitchers in recent years.  Fine.  Instead of signing 2 pitchers for 9-figure contracts, why not corner the market on elite bullpen arms?  Instead of signing 2 starters for $25-30M per season apiece, sign 5-6 elite relievers for $10M per season apiece (likely on shorter guaranteed contracts)?  Then your rotation could be: Ohtani - Opener - Sandoval - Opener - Suarez - Opener.  I can't remember if the Rays' use of the Opener goes back to the Maddon days, but even if he doesn't have experience managing in that environment, surely this strategy would appeal to Maddon.  And the Angels have enough interesting bullpen arms (Chris Rod, Warren, Barria, Detmers) that this strategy might well work.

Teams with mediocre rotations get away with a ton by having deep bullpens.  

A few years ago we saw epic playoff battles between WAS and HOU.  It made everyone feel like you had to have 3 TOR starters to win.  

We're almost to the point where bullpens are pitching the same amount of innings as starters.  Not quite, but close.  It used to be 3 or 4 to 1 ratio.  

The cost per inning of a starter has become so high versus that of a reliever that you have to do the math and determine where the value is.  I think leverage is of tremendous importance and undervalued as well.  Shortening games at a fraction of the cost is huge.  How much more does it cost to get a starter that averages a 3.8 era and 6.1 innings per start versus that of a starter who has a 4.3 era in 5 innings and a two to three relievers that have a 3.5 era for 1 inning every other or third game?  

AND you can grab like 9 relievers who might be able to do that and figure out pretty quick which 3 or 4 can at almost no cost.  Or you can draft 20 pitchers who profile to do that in the future and have an entire renewable stable of them.  

And openers aren't the devil.  

just for kicks, here's another reason to understand how WAR works and know where the nits are even though it's of use.  The Angels had the 8th best pen by WAR but 21st by WPA (which tells you what happened and accounts for leverage).  Why?  Because the Angels had one really good pen arm and the rest was meh at best.  Every other guy we carted out in reasonably high leverage wasn't very good.  

Bullpens are all about depth.  You don't even need to have a very good closer if you got six other guys to get you there.  It's nice but not that critical.  

Imagine 5-6 guys out of your pen that give you about 300-350 innings.  The Angels had about 650 innings from their pen this year and about 775 from their starters.  So imagine that half of your pen innings came at a level commensurate with 2-3 starters who functions as a 1/2/3 in the rotation?  What would it cost to get those 6 or maybe even 7 guys versus that spend on getting those three guys for your rotation? 

[Junkballer]

8 hours ago, Dochalo said:

Teams with mediocre rotations get away with a ton by having deep bullpens.  

A few years ago we saw epic playoff battles between WAS and HOU.  It made everyone feel like you had to have 3 TOR starters to win.  

We're almost to the point where bullpens are pitching the same amount of innings as starters.  Not quite, but close.  It used to be 3 or 4 to 1 ratio.  

The cost per inning of a starter has become so high versus that of a reliever that you have to do the math and determine where the value is.  I think leverage is of tremendous importance and undervalued as well.  Shortening games at a fraction of the cost is huge.  How much more does it cost to get a starter that averages a 3.8 era and 6.1 innings per start versus that of a starter who has a 4.3 era in 5 innings and a two to three relievers that have a 3.5 era for 1 inning every other or third game?  

AND you can grab like 9 relievers who might be able to do that and figure out pretty quick which 3 or 4 can at almost no cost.  Or you can draft 20 pitchers who profile to do that in the future and have an entire renewable stable of them.  

And openers aren't the devil.  

just for kicks, here's another reason to understand how WAR works and know where the nits are even though it's of use.  The Angels had the 8th best pen by WAR but 21st by WPA (which tells you what happened and accounts for leverage).  Why?  Because the Angels had one really good pen arm and the rest was meh at best.  Every other guy we carted out in reasonably high leverage wasn't very good.  

Bullpens are all about depth.  You don't even need to have a very good closer if you got six other guys to get you there.  It's nice but not that critical.  

Imagine 5-6 guys out of your pen that give you about 300-350 innings.  The Angels had about 650 innings from their pen this year and about 775 from their starters.  So imagine that half of your pen innings came at a level commensurate with 2-3 starters who functions as a 1/2/3 in the rotation?  What would it cost to get those 6 or maybe even 7 guys versus that spend on getting those three guys for your rotation? 

Wow, a lot of food for thought here.  It's helpful to be reminded that there are other ways of building a competitive club than focusing on names and making them saviors.  What came to mind for me was @Angelsjunky's thread (link below) which makes a good companion piece to your post.  With value and asset allocation in mind, and remembering that they have a solid #2 in Ohtani (#1 except for innings pitched) I'd rather the Angels obtain a #3 with #2 upside and create a deep formidable bullpen than crazyspend on a #1 at the expense of the bulllpen.  I don't know who those bullpen names should be outside of Iglesias, but memories of having a Shields caliber setup man for K-Rod causes me to hope Minasian is up to the task of building that bullpen back end.

 

[angelsnationtalk]

Random thought....

He's not a shutdown bullpen guy, but Michael Lorenzen could be a good fit for the Angels given their style of play with Ohtani. 

Decent bullpen arm with the versatility to bat if needed. If the Angels want to build for playoffs where versatility and creativity plays a huge role, he should be a good option that won't break the bank. 

[Duren, Duren]

Really good starters still can dominate a game for 6 + innings. Sometimes more.  And do it consistently every five days. Look at Ohtani's starts for instance. Obviously he didn't start every five days, but when he did he was good in almost every game. If he was a pure starter he would easily be a Cy Young candidate.

Imagine three quality starters. Baltimore in the late sixties/early seventies had four awesome starters. So did Atlanta in the nineties. The Dodgers in the sixties with Koufax, Drysdale, Sutton.  Even two if they could be super dominant like a Ryan/Tanana type pair. Or Seaver/Koosman. And this type of analysis could go on and on.

Strategy has changed pretty dramatically over the years about pitcher usage. And pitchers aren't expected to go past six or seven innings anymore. So a great closer is a necessity. 

It's the middle relievers who make a bigger difference now. It is assumed that every team has a good closer.  But getting from the starter to the end often determine who wins games. If the starters go at least six regularly you cut down the need for multiple relievers per game. 

The Angels need two more workhorse good starters at least. Not necessarily great, but say even Cobb types but better. Savvy pitchers with a good arsenal who know how to pitch situationally and pace themselves.  And Iglesias or equivalent signed as a bona fide ace. I think there is promise in the middle with Rodriguez and a couple others, but upgrades should be possible with lower key additions. At this point I haven't looked at other rosters, but talent always becomes available. 

I still prioritize starting pitching because it sets the tone of games and saves wear and tear on the relievers. Mind you, if the trend for 'openers' and 'bullpen games' continues you better have strong middle relief depth and hope you get to the closer with the game competitive. Middle relievers/fringe starters never had the pressure and preparation that regular starters are used to and familiar with. And it's hardly fun for fans watching managers take out notebooks and make constant changes every inning or two. 

 

[BTH]

3 hours ago, angelsnationtalk said:

Random thought....

He's not a shutdown bullpen guy, but Michael Lorenzen could be a good fit for the Angels given their style of play with Ohtani. 

Decent bullpen arm with the versatility to bat if needed. If the Angels want to build for playoffs where versatility and creativity plays a huge role, he should be a good option that won't break the bank. 

Lorenzen has said he wants to go somewhere with a chance to be a starter, so I'm not sure he will sign to be a reliever.

[totdprods]

1 minute ago, Trendon said:

Lorenzen has said he wants to go somewhere with a chance to be a starter, so I'm not sure he will sign to be a reliever.

I'd have to think the Angels success with a two-way player, him being from Anaheim (or near?), and the flexibility of a 6-man rotation would give him some opportunity to start.

Of all the players I hope the Angels pursue this winter, he's one of the tops. I think he'd fit the team's various needs really well, and they might have a bit of an advantage in signing him over other clubs, maybe even lessening that 'I'm only signing as a SP' notion.

[Angels 1961]

On 10/19/2021 at 2:24 PM, Taylor said:

Whoever @Angels 1961 wants, the Angels are guaranteed not to get.

Jesse Chavez and Petit

[Angels 1961]

11 hours ago, angelsnationtalk said:

Random thought....

He's not a shutdown bullpen guy, but Michael Lorenzen could be a good fit for the Angels given their style of play with Ohtani. 

Decent bullpen arm with the versatility to bat if needed. If the Angels want to build for playoffs where versatility and creativity plays a huge role, he should be a good option that won't break the bank. 

He wants to be starter

[Angels 1961]

On 10/19/2021 at 2:24 PM, Taylor said:

Whoever @Angels 1961 wants, the Angels are guaranteed not to get.

Blake Parker, Hansel Robles

[stormngt]

On 10/19/2021 at 2:37 PM, Capital_Dave said:

What if the solution to the Angels' pitching woes can be found in the bullpen instead of on the mound?

It seems like Arte Moreno has an aversion to big contracts for starters.  He hasn't been willing to allow his GMs to match the biggest contracts given to the most coveted pitchers in recent years.  Fine.  Instead of signing 2 pitchers for 9-figure contracts, why not corner the market on elite bullpen arms?  Instead of signing 2 starters for $25-30M per season apiece, sign 5-6 elite relievers for $10M per season apiece (likely on shorter guaranteed contracts)?  Then your rotation could be: Ohtani - Opener - Sandoval - Opener - Suarez - Opener.  I can't remember if the Rays' use of the Opener goes back to the Maddon days, but even if he doesn't have experience managing in that environment, surely this strategy would appeal to Maddon.  And the Angels have enough interesting bullpen arms (Chris Rod, Warren, Barria, Detmers) that this strategy might well work.

Would rather have a lockdown bullpen than a front line starter

[stormngt]

On 10/19/2021 at 4:40 PM, greginpsca said:

I do like having 5 good relievers, but not at the expense of the starting rotation. When your relievers are coming into the game in the 3-4th innings every other game, they will lose their effectiveness after a couple of months. Your starting staff needs to consistently get you into the 5-6 inning, if not more, to keep your pen from being overworked. It's all about balance.

Manager has to keep the starters in for 5 innings.  How many times were there puzzling removal of starters this year.  I saw quite a few lines with the starting pitcher with 3 IP and only 1 run.