Mike Fiers Signs with Tigers; 1 Year for $6 Millon

[Eye Black]

From Jerry Crasnick (LINK)...

 

Mike Fiers has agreed to 1 year, $6M deal with #Tigers pending physical. #Orioles had offered 2 years. @anthonyfenech first reported it was close.

Fiers had been non-tendered by the Astros last week.

[TJseven7]

6 mil... um pass.

[brewmann04]

Again no suprise that the pitchers are getting paid big in FA and think why will see DS add a pitcher via trade

[MrTPlush]

Haha what. He has been pretty bad two years in a row. Surprised he was able to lock down that big of a contract. I guess I’m the end it is pretty petty...but jesh.

[TJseven7]

I mean yeah he's an innings eater but he has been bad enough you'd almost think wilkerson and jungemann could each take a half season and put up similar results. I'll never understand free agency. Teams are so splashy.

[JohnBriggs12]

It's a weird offseason so far. Usually guys like Fiers don't get signed until late for minimal money. Agents must have realized that that getting guys signed before teams spend money is better.

 

Fiers and Tigers are good fits. He's a flip candidate with a good first half and that's where Tigers are in their rebuild.

[JosephC]

I think the Brewers will likely have to take a flier on a starter and am happy that wasn't Fiers.

 

Last two seasons:

Fiers = 4.84 ERA, 1.39 WHIP, 4.91 FIP, 81 ERA+

Garza = 4.74 ERA, 1.48 WHIP, 4.64 FIP, 91 ERA+

[bill hAll Star]

Again no suprise that the pitchers are getting paid big in FA and think why will see DS add a pitcher via trade

 

You make that sound like that's a good/great thing, though.

 

Say we trade 3 good prospects for Chris Archer.

 

That's 3 slots that in 2019 or 2020 that we won't have a good MLB player making $550,000. Instead, we'll have to go to free agency and pay $4 or 5 million for that position (if we're in a competitive position) or we'll go to the next prospect up which may not be as good of a player. On top of that, while Archer's deal is very affordable...it's still $7 million/year.

[Humans Need Water]

Again no suprise that the pitchers are getting paid big in FA and think why will see DS add a pitcher via trade

 

You make that sound like that's a good/great thing, though.

 

Say we trade 3 good prospects for Chris Archer.

 

That's 3 slots that in 2019 or 2020 that we won't have a good MLB player making $550,000. Instead, we'll have to go to free agency and pay $4 or 5 million for that position (if we're in a competitive position) or we'll go to the next prospect up which may not be as good of a player. On top of that, while Archer's deal is very affordable...it's still $7 million/year.

You don't need to trade for the Archer's of the world. You can trade for someone who's a FA after this year or the next. Stearns can also trade from the depth of his MLB team - Broxton, Perez

[bill hAll Star]

Again no suprise that the pitchers are getting paid big in FA and think why will see DS add a pitcher via trade

 

You make that sound like that's a good/great thing, though.

 

Say we trade 3 good prospects for Chris Archer.

 

That's 3 slots that in 2019 or 2020 that we won't have a good MLB player making $550,000. Instead, we'll have to go to free agency and pay $4 or 5 million for that position (if we're in a competitive position) or we'll go to the next prospect up which may not be as good of a player. On top of that, while Archer's deal is very affordable...it's still $7 million/year.

You don't need to trade for the Archer's of the world. You can trade for someone who's a FA after this year or the next. Stearns can also trade from the depth of his MLB team - Broxton, Perez

 

I agree that the "best" trade is our surplus for their surplus...but that's a harder trade to find than one thinks. Keon Broxton will still probably only net you a Mike Fiers-esque pitcher that has a Mike Fiers-esque contract. Either that or you're trading Broxton to someone to eat the salary of Jeff Samardzija (no longer realistic), which is almost like signing an overpriced free agent.

 

Trading for a pitcher that's closer to free agency is even more head-scratching. The Brewers have a long window in my opinion. A small chance to win the next two years and hopefully a larger chance to win 2020 and later. Making a trade for Cole Hamels in theory means that we'll enter 2020 without Cole Hames AND without the prospects we gave up for him.

[Humans Need Water]

You don't need to trade for the Archer's of the world. You can trade for someone who's a FA after this year or the next. Stearns can also trade from the depth of his MLB team - Broxton, Perez

 

I agree that the "best" trade is our surplus for their surplus...but that's a harder trade to find than one thinks. Keon Broxton will still probably only net you a Mike Fiers-esque pitcher that has a Mike Fiers-esque contract. Either that or you're trading Broxton to someone to eat the salary of Jeff Samardzija (no longer realistic), which is almost like signing an overpriced free agent.

 

Trading for a pitcher that's closer to free agency is even more head-scratching. The Brewers have a long window in my opinion. A small chance to win the next two years and hopefully a larger chance to win 2020 and later. Making a trade for Cole Hamels in theory means that we'll enter 2020 without Cole Hames AND without the prospects we gave up for him.

Who mentioned Hamels? And I strongly disagree on Broxton only being able to fetch only a Fiers or Samardzija type (and nobody in between). Broxton plays good defense in CF (can also play both corners), has a solid arm and great speed in the field and on the bases. He was 20/20 with a 300 OBP/720 OPS in a down season after being above average offensively the season before. He has 5yrs cheap control entering his prime. Moving forward he realistically can be somewhere between his 2016/2017 seasons, if not better than that middle ground, which makes him an average or slightly above average every day CF. He has value. There were 6 OF last year that were 20/20. *SIX* And 2 were CF (Trout and Broxton).

 

Chase, Davies, Woodruff are locks for the rotation this year - if Hader is given an opportunity there's 1 open spot. Hence needing an arm for *one year* because you'll also have Nelson back at some point this year and realistically can expect Burnes to take a rotation spot in 2019. Unless they're planning on moving Hader to the pen full-time *AND* trading a current rotation arm by 2019 why wouldn't we need an arm for *one year*? There are only two options for acquiring that type of player - sign a vet FA to a 1yr deal or trading for someone with 1yr remaining on contract. Please explain what's head scratching about all this?

 

The Brewers don't need to use Broxton or Perez for a MLB arm as they could also target a AAA pitcher they believe in, who's MLB ready, that's blocked at the moment. They also have a deep system and can easily afford to part with 1 or 2 *ok* prospects for a MLB arm that's an upgrade over Garza. Prospects that won't affect anything moving forward. Other teams have backend starters who are in their contract years that could be moved for a variety of reasons - quality MLB prospects needing a spot as they're MLB ready, acquisition of a controllable FA pushing them out, etc etc. None of this is difficult because there are *options* everywhere that don't require signing a FA for 3-4yrs or trading Brinson and company for 3-4yrs of a proven arm.

[pacopete4]

Fiers getting $6 million just confirms that the league is filthy rich.

[bill hAll Star]

You don't need to trade for the Archer's of the world. You can trade for someone who's a FA after this year or the next. Stearns can also trade from the depth of his MLB team - Broxton, Perez

 

I agree that the "best" trade is our surplus for their surplus...but that's a harder trade to find than one thinks. Keon Broxton will still probably only net you a Mike Fiers-esque pitcher that has a Mike Fiers-esque contract. Either that or you're trading Broxton to someone to eat the salary of Jeff Samardzija (no longer realistic), which is almost like signing an overpriced free agent.

 

Trading for a pitcher that's closer to free agency is even more head-scratching. The Brewers have a long window in my opinion. A small chance to win the next two years and hopefully a larger chance to win 2020 and later. Making a trade for Cole Hamels in theory means that we'll enter 2020 without Cole Hames AND without the prospects we gave up for him.

Who mentioned Hamels? And I strongly disagree on Broxton only being able to fetch only a Fiers or Samardzija type (and nobody in between). Broxton plays good defense in CF (can also play both corners), has a solid arm and great speed in the field and on the bases. He was 20/20 with a 300 OBP/720 OPS in a down season after being above average offensively the season before. He has 5yrs cheap control entering his prime. Moving forward he realistically can be somewhere between his 2016/2017 seasons, if not better than that middle ground, which makes him an average or slightly above average every day CF. He has value. There were 6 OF last year that were 20/20. *SIX* And 2 were CF (Trout and Broxton).

 

Chase, Davies, Woodruff are locks for the rotation this year - if Hader is given an opportunity there's 1 open spot. Hence needing an arm for *one year* because you'll also have Nelson back at some point this year and realistically can expect Burnes to take a rotation spot in 2019. Unless they're planning on moving Hader to the pen full-time *AND* trading a current rotation arm by 2019 why wouldn't we need an arm for *one year*? There are only two options for acquiring that type of player - sign a vet FA to a 1yr deal or trading for someone with 1yr remaining on contract. Please explain what's head scratching about all this?

 

The Brewers don't need to use Broxton or Perez for a MLB arm as they could also target a AAA pitcher they believe in, who's MLB ready, that's blocked at the moment. They also have a deep system and can easily afford to part with 1 or 2 *ok* prospects for a MLB arm that's an upgrade over Garza. Prospects that won't affect anything moving forward. Other teams have backend starters who are in their contract years that could be moved for a variety of reasons - quality MLB prospects needing a spot as they're MLB ready, acquisition of a controllable FA pushing them out, etc etc. None of this is difficult because there are *options* everywhere that don't require signing a FA for 3-4yrs or trading Brinson and company for 3-4yrs of a proven arm.

 

I mentioned Hamels because I couldn't really come up with many other options that would have 1-2 years left on control.

 

I'm not so optimistic about Nelson ever being that good again given his injury. Even though I like Woodruff, we are foolish to ever just pen him into a long-term role. Same with Hader. I've said it in a few other threads, but we have a lot of guys in the Woodruff range that are nice #3-ish prospects. But I'm going to assume like a 30-40% hit rate on those types. I want a lot of them in addition to Davies and Anderson (and maybe Nelson). We have some coming down the pike, but several of them are still 2-3 years away from taking on a full workload in the majors.

 

I'm not being an overly pessimistic, rather realistic. This does not mean that we need to sign a pitcher for 4 years to add to that main grouping, but I just think the list of guys that most on here would actually be interested in if they're shocked by the price tags on the free agent pitchers so far will be very small. And I don't want to trade from our system unless it's for an absolute ace. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

Broxton is a nice player. I like him. But he is a platoon bat, unfortunately. His talent is only maximized facing mostly left-handed pitching. I'd love to make a shrewd move where we find another version of Zach Davies while he's in AAA. That's something I'd pursue. I just think there are limited opportunities for that.