Time to get Fier'd up?

[HiAndTight]

I would love the Brewers to do a AAA for AAA trade. The Brewers really do have a decision to make on their perceived value of Fiers. They may consider him the Estrada replacement (in that case you simply let him be a AAA superstar this year and deal with it in the off season (trade Marco)). Or similarly you trade another pitcher in the off season and have Fiers AND Estrada next year. But... what to do about Nelson.

 

If they consider Fiers a AAAA guy, they should do a minors for minors trade for us to get a prospect that 'fits' with our needs in the next couple of years.

 

Oh My. We have a problem. Too many decent starters.

 

Mike Fiers (MIL) for Scott Van Slyke (LAD). Boom.

 

 

Or Joc Pedersen...though that'd likely cost more than just Fiers.

 

What the Dodgers really need is help at SS and or C or in the BP. Otherwise they've got 6-7 experienced starters including 2 aces, 4 all star OF'ers, 1st basemen, 3rd basemen, a very good young 2nd basemen.

 

So maybe Fiers works for them in the BP, but I'd think they'd prefer a flame thrower than Fiers. They just have so much money available and some really nice prospects(Seager, Pedersen, Urias who dominated low A at 16 years old).

 

 

 

It might be a good match, but the Dodgers don't strike me as the type of team that's going to "settle," for an unproven or relatively unproven pitcher to fill any need. Even if that's as their long reliever.

[HiAndTight]

10 innings vs 152 innings is not even comparable.

 

 

 

Nobody said it was "comparable." You said that Nelson had no Major League experience and that's just factually incorrect. Just simply pointing out that Nelson does in fact have some major league experience contrary to what you said.

 

And while Fiers does have experience, and had a very good run, he had a 4.89 ERA in August in 35 IP, a 7.09 ERA in Sep/OCT in 26.2 IP. He pitched ~62 IP in the final 2 months of 2012 and pitched 65 Innings before that. So he was great for half the innings he pitched that year, really bad in an equal sample size the second half, and then followed that up with a 2014 season in which he posted an ERA of 7.35.

 

So why is it a given that you go with the guy who had was good for about 65 innings and then just flat out awful after he went around the league for the next 84 innings when he's not as highly regarded or as talented as Nelson?

 

To me, I'd call it a toss up. I wouldn't be surprised if either was called up the way the two are pitching now...but that's just me. Maybe I'm just not understanding it.

[JohnBriggs12]

Fiers hit the wall in mid August of 2012, not surprising since he had never had a year of more than 125 innings in the minors. But up until then he was arguably their best starter for 2 1/2 months including much of that time when Greinke was still around.

He's clearly found his command again. When Fiers has his command, he's a very good major league starter. Problem for him is there is currently no room. If a spot opens up while he's in his current form, I think he has to get first call.

[Baldkin]

Fiers was never the same after RRR let him get lit up in Colorado. Then he broke his arm last year, and now he's healthy and has found his groove again.

 

I hope we see him up this year.

 

Starting pitching depth... who knew?

 

Oh, and I still think Smith get's the first crack at starting if someone gets hurt.

[zzzmanwitz]

Oh, and I still think Smith get's the first crack at starting if someone gets hurt.

 

With him not being stretched out and with his effectiveness in the BP, I give this about a 2% chance of happening. Fiers or Nelson will definitely be the first guy given a start when we need it.

[jerichoholicninja]

Anyone feel like trying a 6-man rotation for a while? Atlanta will be doing that for a few weeks because they have 6 starters who have been pitching well. I think it would be worth a shot in late July or August to give the starters an extra day and save some innings.

[zzzmanwitz]

Jericho, I think that would be tough if Wang is still in the BP.

[FVBrewerFan]

No offense to anyone, but this conversation seems to keep reverting back to whether Fiers should be in the Brewers rotation, or should it be Nelson, or.. someone else.

 

I have yet to see a good reason not to put Fiers in the Brewers pen, which was the OT. First, does anyone doubt he is better option than Wang, Wooten, and possibly Kintzler or Henderson? Secondly, AGAIN, I understand the reasoning behind keeping him strecthed out in Nashville. But there are other guys who could start (heck, even Mills coming up for a spot start would be fine.)

 

So, essentially what some of you are saying is there seems to be a way to immediately improve the team TODAY, but don't do it because of a series of events MAY happen later this season? Sorry, I don't get that. Fiers is not young, nor will he pitch like Cy Young for much longer. Why not get the innings out of him NOW while his stuff is outstanding? Finally, any notion of trading him for anything of value whatsoever is wishful thinking in my opinion.

[logan82]

He is probably a better option than Wang to put in a game but not a better option than Wang to have on the roster.

[torts]

No offense to anyone, but this conversation seems to keep reverting back to whether Fiers should be in the Brewers rotation, or should it be Nelson, or.. someone else.

 

I have yet to see a good reason not to put Fiers in the Brewers pen, which was the OT. First, does anyone doubt he is better option than Wang, Wooten, and possibly Kintzler or Henderson? Secondly, AGAIN, I understand the reasoning behind keeping him strecthed out in Nashville. But there are other guys who could start (heck, even Mills coming up for a spot start would be fine.)

 

So, essentially what some of you are saying is there seems to be a way to immediately improve the team TODAY, but don't do it because of a series of events MAY happen later this season? Sorry, I don't get that. Fiers is not young, nor will he pitch like Cy Young for much longer. Why not get the innings out of him NOW while his stuff is outstanding? Finally, any notion of trading him for anything of value whatsoever is wishful thinking in my opinion.

 

he's stretched out as a Starting Pitcher, that is good enough reason. Gorzo will be healthy soon, put him in the bullpen instead of messing up a starting pitchers rhythm and schedule. If not him and you need an arm bring up Figaro.

[zzzmanwitz]

Our BP has been the best in baseball this season. Fiers is doing great in AAA and is ready to fill in if one of our starters goes down (which is bound to happen). Why mess up a good thing?

[TheCrew07]

Because Thornburg shouldn't be a reliever by default, both he and Nelson are more talented than Fiers.

 

The Thornburg situation is exactly how legitimate starting pitchers end up getting wasted as closers... they fit an immediate need so the team is short sighted and eventually the team ends up having to scrounge around to fill out the rotation while they have a perfectly good starting pitcher giving them 60 innings based on some completely arbitrary criteria.

 

Yes I know and understand the whole "proven" concept, but it's simply garbage to me. Give the better talent a chance to shine and if the player doesn't cut it then move on to your next best option.

 

My opinion of the closer concept aside, the idea shouldn't be to take the Papelbon route to being a closer, it should be the Gagne route.

[LouisEly]

And while Fiers does have experience, and had a very good run, he had a 4.89 ERA in August in 35 IP, a 7.09 ERA in Sep/OCT in 26.2 IP. He pitched ~62 IP in the final 2 months of 2012 and pitched 65 Innings before that. So he was great for half the innings he pitched that year, really bad in an equal sample size the second half, and then followed that up with a 2014 season in which he posted an ERA of 7.35.

 

So why is it a given that you go with the guy who had was good for about 65 innings and then just flat out awful after he went around the league for the next 84 innings when he's not as highly regarded or as talented as Nelson?

 

To me, I'd call it a toss up. I wouldn't be surprised if either was called up the way the two are pitching now...but that's just me. Maybe I'm just not understanding it.

And you are sure that it was because major league hitters saw him a second time and not some other reason? The month of September 2012 was because hitters had seem him already, and not because he had pitched 56 more innings than either of his two previous minor league seasons? 2013 was because hitters had seen him before and not because he was distracted by his mother being gravely ill? (BTW, if you take out the Colorado game, his ERA the other five starts in August 2012 was 2.73 and his last two starts in August were quality starts.)

 

Homer Bailey was pretty awful his second year in the league, worse than Fiers in 2013. Yes, age, blah, blah, blah, but including 2013 Fiers has a better career ERA, WHIP, K/9, and BB/9 than Homer Bailey. (Bailey does have the advantage of HR/9 - 1.1 vs. 1.2). And if you want to talk about recent performance, over Fiers last 74 innings in AAA - the PCL, a notorious hitters league - he has posted a 1.82 ERA, a 11.43 K/9, 6.46 H/9 and 94:18 K:BB ratio.

 

No, Fiers isn't a #1, but I will argue that he is as good as 75% of the #4s and 25% of the #3s in the league. And under team control for a few more years at minimum salary he definitely has trade value.

[HiAndTight]

Anyone feel like trying a 6-man rotation for a while? Atlanta will be doing that for a few weeks because they have 6 starters who have been pitching well. I think it would be worth a shot in late July or August to give the starters an extra day and save some innings.

 

 

I'm not in favor of a 6 man rotation, but I AM in favor of the Brewers doing something similar to what the Red Sox did a few years ago. They seemed to give all of their starters a little rest with a 15 day DL stint. I would actually be in favor of this starting maybe in July. Give Nelson(or Fiers, both are good options I just like Nelson a little more) the starts.

 

It serves two purposes. I think all 5 pitchers would benefit and it would make them stronger down the stretch, and it gives Nelson/Fiers starts. It may be counter intuitive and that might not be good for Yo and company. But it seems to me Gallardo does a little better and really picked up last year after the ASB and a little rest. Lohse is 36 now I believe. Can't hurt him to pitch fewer innings. Garza has had arm issues and Estrada has been injured. And then Peralta's just a young pitcher and you obviously want to limit his innings pitched if you can.

 

 

The biggest thing is I don't think there is a big drop off from the top 5 to the next 2 starters and they may even pitch better.

[HiAndTight]

And while Fiers does have experience, and had a very good run, he had a 4.89 ERA in August in 35 IP, a 7.09 ERA in Sep/OCT in 26.2 IP. He pitched ~62 IP in the final 2 months of 2012 and pitched 65 Innings before that. So he was great for half the innings he pitched that year, really bad in an equal sample size the second half, and then followed that up with a 2014 season in which he posted an ERA of 7.35.

 

So why is it a given that you go with the guy who had was good for about 65 innings and then just flat out awful after he went around the league for the next 84 innings when he's not as highly regarded or as talented as Nelson?

 

To me, I'd call it a toss up. I wouldn't be surprised if either was called up the way the two are pitching now...but that's just me. Maybe I'm just not understanding it.

And you are sure that it was because major league hitters saw him a second time and not some other reason? The month of September 2012 was because hitters had seem him already, and not because he had pitched 56 more innings than either of his two previous minor league seasons? 2013 was because hitters had seen him before and not because he was distracted by his mother being gravely ill? (BTW, if you take out the Colorado game, his ERA the other five starts in August 2012 was 2.73 and his last two starts in August were quality starts.)

 

Homer Bailey was pretty awful his second year in the league, worse than Fiers in 2013. Yes, age, blah, blah, blah, but including 2013 Fiers has a better career ERA, WHIP, K/9, and BB/9 than Homer Bailey. (Bailey does have the advantage of HR/9 - 1.1 vs. 1.2). And if you want to talk about recent performance, over Fiers last 74 innings in AAA - the PCL, a notorious hitters league - he has posted a 1.82 ERA, a 11.43 K/9, 6.46 H/9 and 94:18 K:BB ratio.

 

No, Fiers isn't a #1, but I will argue that he is as good as 75% of the #4s and 25% of the #3s in the league. And under team control for a few more years at minimum salary he definitely has trade value.

 

 

Absolutely not. I'm not sure of anything. But the argument has been presented that Fiers is clearly the better option and shouldn't be moved to the BP to help now because he has to be kept on a regular schedule to start. Torts made the argument that Fiers is a better option because he has had major league success before. I'm just pointing out that while Fiers has had succcess, he's also had failures, so that in and of itself is not a very strong reason to give him the ball over Nelson.

 

I like Fiers, I liked the way he pitched when he was up here and I believe he can be a very good pitcher in the big leagues. I'm not sure if he's as good as 25% of the 3's or not, but it wouldn't surprise me to see him pitch very well. But Nelson is a guy who can legitimately become an ace. Both are ready. They're not quite equally dominant in AAA, but given the fact that Nelson can get the K's and has a heavy FB and Fiers gives up more fly balls, I'm simply saying that I'd lean toward Nelson.

 

 

My opinion of the closer concept aside, the idea shouldn't be to take the Papelbon route to being a closer, it should be the Gagne route.

 

I think everyone agrees with you on this Crew, but everyone seems to think it's just a given that Thornburg will become the starter closer. Not just on this thread, but on others. I have yet to see the Brewers operate in this manner. I think the Brewers will give Thornburg a shot at starting again.

 

It's not as if they've already gone the Papelbon route. Melvin and Roenicke have both said that they view Thornburg as a starter who's filling a need right now.

 

I think Smith and Thornburg end up becoming starting pitchers....just probably not this year since we have two great options who are stretched out and those two are doing well in their role. This change will likely be made this off-season.

[gregmag]

Torts made the argument that Fiers is a better option because he has had major league success before. I'm just pointing out that while Fiers has had succcess, he's also had failures, so that in and of itself is not a very strong reason to give him the ball over Nelson.

 

I understand your broader point, and I like Nelson a lot. But there's one very basic problem with your argument here. Any fool can fail at the major league level. Only a few people can succeed at the major league level. That, I think, is why LouisEly's argument above is so important. If we conclude, because of Fiers' bad stretch, that his good stretch is a mirage -- if he only had success because hitters hadn't seen him twice -- then it makes sense to discount his success. Otherwise, I think Fiers pitched enough dominant innings that we should consider him a mid-rotation MLB starter. I think that's what he is.

 

As for the assertion made elsewhere above (I won't call it an argument, because it's characteristically proclaimed as fact, like anyone who disagrees is just stupid) that Thornburg is simply more talented than Fiers, I guess it depends on what you mean by talent. Talent, for a pitcher, seems to me to involve something like a combination of velocity, movement, command, pitch assortment, stamina, and mental makeup, not necessarily in that order. After some number of innings, results conclusively prove talent, because the only object of a pitcher's talent is to get hitters out. Neither Fiers nor Thornburg has thrown that many innings yet. For now, Thornburg wins on velocity and Fiers wins on command. The rest looks to me like it's still up for grabs.

[PrinceFielderx1]

If Nelson throws harder than Fiers, then he is automatically the better prospect. Don't even mention Maddux he's proven he's an extremely rare commodity and doesn't come around often at all.

[dacbrewers]

Because Thornburg shouldn't be a reliever by default, both he and Nelson are more talented than Fiers.

 

The Thornburg situation is exactly how legitimate starting pitchers end up getting wasted as closers... they fit an immediate need so the team is short sighted and eventually the team ends up having to scrounge around to fill out the rotation while they have a perfectly good starting pitcher giving them 60 innings based on some completely arbitrary criteria.

 

Yes I know and understand the whole "proven" concept, but it's simply garbage to me. Give the better talent a chance to shine and if the player doesn't cut it then move on to your next best option.

 

My opinion of the closer concept aside, the idea shouldn't be to take the Papelbon route to being a closer, it should be the Gagne route.

I agree with everything your saying...I just hope the short sightedness doesn't result in one of our guys going somewhere else to play. I am still frustrated by the Garza signing because it held Thornburg or Nelson back from starting.

[HiAndTight]

Torts made the argument that Fiers is a better option because he has had major league success before. I'm just pointing out that while Fiers has had succcess, he's also had failures, so that in and of itself is not a very strong reason to give him the ball over Nelson.

 

I understand your broader point, and I like Nelson a lot. But there's one very basic problem with your argument here. Any fool can fail at the major league level. Only a few people can succeed at the major league level. That, I think, is why LouisEly's argument above is so important. If we conclude, because of Fiers' bad stretch, that his good stretch is a mirage -- if he only had success because hitters hadn't seen him twice -- then it makes sense to discount his success. Otherwise, I think Fiers pitched enough dominant innings that we should consider him a mid-rotation MLB starter. I think that's what he is.

 

As for the assertion made elsewhere above (I won't call it an argument, because it's characteristically proclaimed as fact, like anyone who disagrees is just stupid) that Thornburg is simply more talented than Fiers, I guess it depends on what you mean by talent. Talent, for a pitcher, seems to me to involve something like a combination of velocity, movement, command, pitch assortment, stamina, and mental makeup, not necessarily in that order. After some number of innings, results conclusively prove talent, because the only object of a pitcher's talent is to get hitters out. Neither Fiers nor Thornburg has thrown that many innings yet. For now, Thornburg wins on velocity and Fiers wins on command. The rest looks to me like it's still up for grabs.

 

I think the problem with YOUR argument here is that I'm not discounting his success, nor do I doubt he can be a middle of the rotation type of guy. He may even have some years where he's even better.

 

However, I believe Nelson is the more talented pitcher and the better option. I think he's another Wily Peralta type pitcher, but I think he's more polished at this point than Peralta was when he was called up.

 

As for who's more talented, Thornburg vs Fiers, I guess our definition of talent differs. I think Jeremy Jeffress is more talented than Fiers. Talent is obviously only a fraction of the equation, but I think when you're talking about just pure talent, it's...at least a hard argument to make that the jury isn't in between Fiers and Thornburg. There's obviously a question as to who will become the better pitcher. But Thornburg just has a better arm, and he gets a lot of movement. Fiers is more of a Arroyo type pitcher who've very smart adding and subtracting and locates his pitches very well, but there is a reason that guys like Fiers don't go in the 1st round.

 

Either way, at this point, Thornburg in the big leagues pitching well, Fiers in the minors starting and dominating, who's more "talented," isn't all that important to me at this point. It would be if we're talking about a draft pick, or two guys pitching in Brevard County, but not two guys who are already big leaguers.

[SoupTown]

"But Thornburg just has a better arm, and he gets a lot of movement"

 

Strange, but up to this sentence I was always told (I cant watch with my own eyes) that Thornburg's fastball was dead straight.

 

Fiers... we will never know until he us up here again. I think a safe way to test the '2nd time through' hypothesis is to see how the AAA hitters handle him the 2nd time through.

 

But this leads to a small thought always in my mind for years. It seems AAA pitchers with decent stuff (and hold their nerve) can be very successful before the MLB 'sees them'. You know. The 'emergency start' where the other team's batters are baffled. I would love to mix this thought with the other thought of giving MLB pitchers their 15 day R&R each year. So your rotation - even bullpen is regularly peppered with a well playing AAA guy. AAA guy baffles. MLB guy rests. I don't know how this could be implemented. But it sounds kind of useful to me.

 

Heck, you can then even 'con' other teams to trade for them 'before their 2nd time through'. Mind you, with a Peralta he is getting better 2nd time and 3rd time through. So we have come full circle. To make the right decision, you need to evaluate properly the talent you have, acquire, and let go. Hmmmm. Our Crew as talent evaluators. Hmmmm?

[HiAndTight]

"But Thornburg just has a better arm, and he gets a lot of movement"

 

Strange, but up to this sentence I was always told (I cant watch with my own eyes) that Thornburg's fastball was dead straight.

 

Fiers... we will never know until he us up here again. I think a safe way to test the '2nd time through' hypothesis is to see how the AAA hitters handle him the 2nd time through.

 

But this leads to a small thought always in my mind for years. It seems AAA pitchers with decent stuff (and hold their nerve) can be very successful before the MLB 'sees them'. You know. The 'emergency start' where the other team's batters are baffled. I would love to mix this thought with the other thought of giving MLB pitchers their 15 day R&R each year. So your rotation - even bullpen is regularly peppered with a well playing AAA guy. AAA guy baffles. MLB guy rests. I don't know how this could be implemented. But it sounds kind of useful to me.

 

Heck, you can then even 'con' other teams to trade for them 'before their 2nd time through'. Mind you, with a Peralta he is getting better 2nd time and 3rd time through. So we have come full circle. To make the right decision, you need to evaluate properly the talent you have, acquire, and let go. Hmmmm. Our Crew as talent evaluators. Hmmmm?

 

 

His fastball is pretty straight. But he locates if very well(from the limited sample I've seen). But I was more referring to his change which at least to start the year looked filthy and his curve ball.

 

I do agree think the idea that whoever throws harder is "automatically better." Obviously it's a liiiittle bit more nuanced than that.