
#15 RP · Reds
Height
6'2"
Weight
208 lbs
Age
35
College
Belmont Abbey
Draft
2013, Rd 10, #297
Experience
9 yrs
Bats/Throws
L/R
Grade Emilio Pagan
Your grade joins the crowd-sourced Fan Verdict.
On the field, Emilio Pagan grades out as an excellent RP for Reds (A- Performance). That places him 79th of 395 graded relief pitchers. The contract is harder to defend: the Contract Value Index calls it good value (B), with the cost outrunning the output. The public read is mixed (C Sentiment), drawn from current news and social signal rather than the box score.
| Year | Team | GP | ERA | W-L | K | WHIP | IP | SV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Career | ![]() | 492 | 3.7336748 | 30-28 | 592 | 1.0793854 | 0.0 | 71 |
| 2026 | ![]() | 15 | 6.43 | 2-1 | 11 | 1.43 | 14.0 | 6 |
| 2025 |
Length
2 years
Total Value
$20.0M
Guaranteed
$12.0M
AAV
$10.0M/yr
Per-game impact for Emilio Pagan pencils out to a A- performance grade. At 35 years old with a decade of big-league seasoning behind him, Pagan is still operating as a high-leverage reliever in the upper tier of his positional class — the kind of established veteran you lean on in tight spots when games are decided in the ninth inning. His strikeout rate across 15 appearances in the 2026 season (11 K) reflects the kind of electric stuff that made him a worthy $10M investment for Cincinnati's closer role. The alarm bells, however, are entirely legitimate: a hamstring injury has sidelined him at precisely the wrong time, with the Reds sitting at 37-39 and clinging to playoff positioning with 97 days remaining in the regular season. What makes this injury particularly damaging isn't just the lost time — it's the durability concern it raises about a 35-year-old reliever trying to recapture late-inning dominance after a multi-week absence. The Reds' swift moves to add Chase Petty and Rhett Lowder to the bullpen indicate the front office has accepted this closer may not be available for the stretch run, a tacit admission that even when Pagan returns, the confidence in his ability to shoulder the ninth-inning load down the final two months may be permanently fractured. For now, his on-field performance grade reflects what he delivered before the injury — but the narrative has shifted entirely to the training room, and sentiment has cratered accordingly.
Other same-position deals the Contract Value Index also places in the B band — a quick read on where Emilio's contract sits relative to comparable money.
Emilio Pagan ranks 79th of 395 graded relief pitchers by performance. That slots Emilio between Jimmy Herget (A-) just ahead and Daniel Palencia (A-) just behind.
Graded higher
Jimmy HergetRockiesA-Riley MartinCubsA-Carl Edwards JrMetsA-Graded lower
Daniel PalenciaCubsAuto-moderated fan forum with 5-minute speaker turns
Loading discussion...
Emilio Pagan is a veteran in his 9th MLB season listed at RP for the Reds. FanVerdicts covers every MLB player, team, GM, and transaction — and puts your verdict on all of it. Sign in to cast your Fan Verdict on Emilio Pagan, see where the crowd lands, and argue the call. FanVerdicts also brings its own read — performance, sentiment, and Contract Value Index — as one honest input alongside the crowd's. Where FanVerdicts has weighed in so far: Contract Value Index B, Performance A-, Sentiment C.
The crowd's Fan Verdict moves in real time as fans vote on this profile. FanVerdicts' own read updates as new data lands — performance recalculates when MLB game stats post, sentiment shifts with media coverage and fan discussion, and the Contract Value Index recomputes when contract terms change. Contract details below show the structure (years, total value, average annual value, guarantees) behind the Contract Value Index read.
For league-wide context, the MLB hub has team rankings, GM report cards, the transactions feed, and live scoreboards. The MLB player rankings page sorts every active player by performance and contract value within their position.
![]() |
| 70 |
| 2.88 |
| 2-4 |
| 81 |
| 0.92 |
| 68.2 |
| 32 |
| 2024 | ![]() | 38 | 4.50 | 4-5 | 44 | 1.34 | 38.0 | 1 |
| 2023 | ![]() | 66 | 2.99 | 5-2 | 65 | 0.95 | 69.1 | 1 |
| 2022 | ![]() | 59 | 4.43 | 4-6 | 84 | 1.37 | 63.0 | 9 |
| 2021 | ![]() | 67 | 4.83 | 4-3 | 69 | 1.17 | 63.1 | 0 |
| 2020 | ![]() | 22 | 4.50 | 0-1 | 23 | 1.05 | 22.0 | 2 |
| 2019 | ![]() | 66 | 2.31 | 4-2 | 96 | 0.83 | 70.0 | 20 |
| 2018 | ![]() | 55 | 4.35 | 3-1 | 63 | 1.19 | 62.0 | 0 |
| 2017 | ![]() | 34 | 3.22 | 2-3 | 56 | 0.93 | 50.1 | 0 |
Peers ranked by Performance grade among players at the same position. Tap any name for their full profile.