Mike Fiers
Fiers was non-tendered because Oakland is not paying a mid-rotation starter, at best, a $10 million salary. According to Cot’s Contracts, the last Oakland starting pitcher earning that much money was Scott Kazmir in 2015.

The Brewers immediately come to mind as a home for Fiers because he’s a former Brewer that has survived in MLB despite having below average fastball velocity. His fourseam fastball sits around 90 MPH, which Milwaukee has some experience with. There is ample cause for concern with Fiers though. Last season his swing and miss rate dropped for the fourth straight season, and dipped below 20 percent for the first time in his career. As his whiff percentage has dropped, Fiers has allowed more home runs (ranging from 1.2 to 1.9 per 9 innings) and struck out fewer batters (losing almost two strikeouts per nine innings as there are more strikeouts now than any time in the history of MLB).

However, there may be an area ripe for exploitation which could bring renewed success for Fiers: his curveball. He threw the curve for around 16 percent of his pitches in 2018, which is around his career average. Based on results though, Fiers should be throwing it more. Batters have hit .196 and have slugged .307 against the pitch, both of which are his best numbers. In 2018, those numbers improved to .145 and .181, once again performing as his best pitch results wise.  The pitch also generates his most ground balls: over 60 percent of curveballs put in play over his career have been ground balls. His 2018 ground ball rate on curveballs in play was almost exactly his career average.

Fiers consistently buries the ball below the zone and generates a large amount of whiffs on pitches that would be balls. In 2018, almost all of the damage against the pitch was on pitches out of the strike zone, which a player can live with.

For a pitch that he’ll throw equally to lefties and righties, it’s a little baffling that Fiers hasn’t decided to ride the curveball hard as his overall results have gotten worse. His curveball usage was actually down almost 20 percent last season when compared with 2017. Even after the trade to Oakland, while he threw the pitch more, there’s opportunity to make it the focal point of his attack and Milwaukee has some experience in signing free agent pitchers and having them focus on throwing more breaking balls.

Fiers may not be worth $10M, but I think he would be an interesting signing for a team that has helped pitchers maximize their stuff to more fully reach their potential.

Blake Parker
After a season that saw regression across the board, the Angels non-tendered Blake Parker rather than pay his projected $3.1 salary. Superficially, his 3.26 ERA and career high 14 saves indicate a decent reliever. Digging a little deeper reveals some problems, though:

Most of Parker’s regression is found in performance against his fastball. In 2017, batters hit .179 and slugged .313 against his fastball, with a .204 BABIP, but those numbers rose to .315, .562 and .328 in 2018. Batters hit more home runs against his fastball in 2018 (10) than he allowed in total in 2017 (7).

After spiking in 2017, Parker’s fastball velocity fell from 94 to 92.8 last season. The pitch started the season slower and the velocity continued trending down. He also had a location issue. Parker had previously located the pitch away from both righties and lefties, generally avoiding the middle of the plate and looking to jam hitters as much as possible. That plan failed against both sides as Parker literally had a Rudolph nose in his fastball strike zone plot. While the velocity may not come back, better location can cure a lot of Parker’s ills as batters did the most damage against his poorly located pitches.

Parker also has potential with his other two pitches: the curveball and splitter. The curveball used to be his secondary pitch, but he shelved in it favor of his splitter in 2017. Parker brought the pitch back towards the end of the season. His whiffs on both pitches were down in 2018 and location may have played a role here as well. In his most effective season, Parker threw almost 62 percent of his curves and splitters below the zone, which dropped to 56 percent in 2018. In particular, he consistently missed that spot against left handed hitters. His whiff numbers on those pitches compare favorably in 2017 and 2018, but because he was missing his spot more, batters made more contact.

Aside from the velocity drop, Parker also just didn’t execute his pitches in 2018. If the Brewers think there’s an easy mechanical fix, then Parker is a potential cheap addition to Milwaukee’s monster bullpen.

Note: Projected arbitration salaries are from MLB Trade Rumors.

(1) Grading Thames
Several sources of projection have outlined expectations for Eric Thames in Milwaukee, so I’m not going to attempt to project Thames’s statistical performance in Milwaukee. Instead, I want to look at the opportunity cost of Thames, as well as the potential value from his scouting profile. Really, my analysis of both Thames and Thornburg will depend on your feelings of WARP; whether or not you believe that WARP adequately captured Chris Carter’s value to the Brewers is going to be a factor that impacts how you view the slugger’s surplus value, for instance (a similar issue will arise with Thornburg below).

In my last analysis, I estimated that in terms of contractual value and production, Carter was worth between $18 million and $25 million to the Brewers (the main focal point here is not to consider the fact that he may have cost between $8 million and $10 million in salary arbitration, but that the Brewers could release Carter without spending a dime [and they did just that], which frames his contractual value). The most interesting note on Thames is that the slugger has changed his approach and mechanics while working in the KBO, which places a different lens on his outburst in that league, and also changes his scouting outlook in the USA. Beyond the Box Score features a detailed look at Thames’s swing in the KBO, which shows some development from his MLB swing.

If one attempts to balance Thames’s winding career path with his recent KBO superstardom, a “punt” scouting grade of 45-50 may be in order for the age 30-33 first baseman’s contract. Yet, visions of Jose Bautista come to mind whenever someone says “late 20s mechanical adjustment,” as the Blue Jays’ iconic slugger was little more than a .239 / .324 / .398 slasher through 2008 when Toronto acquired him. The idea that a player can unleash his power after his prime development years is not implausible, and indeed some of those players become superstars (Edwin Encarnacion, Bautista’s teammate, is another example).

In 1,000 scenarios, imagine that Thames reaches 40 OFP 900 times ($1,800M), 50 OFP 80 times ($2,976M), 60 OFP 19 times ($1,452M), and Jose Bautista once ($218M): the Brewers still come out ahead, even if in 90 percent of scenarios Thames effectively busts (0.93 WARP over four seasons). Their total surplus, in this scenario, would be approximately $2.8M. So, the Thames contract is a wash at worst, and at best a fantastic opportunity to sign a foreign league superstar that was simply a late bloomer. Now the only question is if Thames ends up closer to the 0.1 percent odds of breaking out as an MLB superstar on the strength of his KBO adjustments.
Surplus Value: Approximately $2.8M if assumed 40 OFP in 90 percent of outcomes.

(2) Trading Thornburg
How does one grade the Thornburg trade? In my previous grading of current assets, Thornburg’s three-year performance weighed down his significant gains as a reliever. Boston obviously traded for Thornburg with the idea of building on his season as an excellent high leverage relief option, and whether or not Thornburg is a closer, there is a chance that he will provide excellent value to their roster if given the chance to prove himself in the late innings over another season. The best aspect for the big market Red Sox is that they now reserve arbitration rights for Thornburg for three seasons, meaning that there is plenty of time for Thornburg to move within different high leverage roles, struggle, iron out any issues, even weather an injury. In this case, a study of the McCann trade, which caused me to reconsider using depreciation-models to assess trade value, one would do well to assess Thornburg in the most robust manner, certainly weighing his 2016 improvements much more heavily than his previous struggles.

If anything, this comparison should show that it’s extremely difficult to simply assess a trade based on one single model, or one assumption. The Brewers could assume that Thornburg’s troubles would weigh heavier, and they wouldn’t necessarily be wrong; the Red Sox could buy high and have a robust model for Thornburg, and be equally correct. I dare say there will be no equilibrium found for this deal, between either club. The deal is an immediate victory for the contending Red Sox, who bolster their bullpen with a hard throwing up-and-coming reliever that offers three years of arbitration reserve; the deal is an immediate victory for the Brewers, who turned a struggling swingman-at-best into a lights-out reliever and then sold at the best possible moment (it can be argued that even waiting to see if Thornburg could close for the first half of 2017 is too risky for the Brewers, since any issues in that regard would tank the value built during 2016).

Considering both conservative and aggressive estimates for the trade as currently constructed, it should not be outlandish to say that the Red Sox properly gambled that they can retain value with Thornburg’s contract (which can be non-tendered without cost prior to 2018 and 2019). If the PTBNL turns out to be a player with a pedigree other than organizational depth, that might push Thornburg into 2.0 WARP/year territory to regain value. Yet, given that the Red Sox are gambling for playoff spots, overpaying in a trade for a high leverage player is not necessarily a bad deal if the payoff is somewhere between $10 million and $30 million of playoff revenue. Adding together playoff revenue, playoff prestige, and potential flags flying is well worth a PTBNL. There is plenty of evidence to argue the trade a success for either team, which is a good sign that Milwaukee maximized their short-term closer’s value.

(3) Miguel Diaz’s Value
I previously called GM David Stearns’s refusal to protect top RHP prospect Miguel Diaz from the Rule 5 draft a “dreadful, terrible” move, but I think I emphasized the wrong reasons. As the Brewers potentially lost Diaz to the Padres (via the Twins), depending on how he fares early in the season and whether he sticks with San Diego, it is worth recasting the move as a failure even if Diaz does not reach the MLB or his gaudiest 60 OFP from summer 2016.

Imagine that Diaz follows the odds of reaching the MLB at approximately 20 percent; among those potential MLB futures, consider a 40 OFP / roster filler status as the vast majority (95 percent of potential MLB futures, maybe reaching 1.0 WARP over three seasons), a 50 OFP (4.5 percent of potential MLB futures, maybe reaching 4.0 WARP over three seasons), and 60 OFP in 0.5 percent of MLB futures (maybe reaching 7.0 WARP over three seasons). Spread over 1,000 potential futures, Miguel Diaz averages out to approximately 0.23 WARP, or someone worth between $0.500 million league minimum contract (replacement contract) and $1.61 million using the standard $7 million / WARP “market estimation.” This is the biggest problem with failing to protect Diaz: in the first place, he’s one of only a few true 50+ / 60 OFP prospects in the Brewers system. There are many 50 prospects in the system, and several 50+ prospects, even, but not many reached a 60 OFP grade in 2016. Diaz reached that level, and is therefore one of the best prospects even adding in all the risk one can find.
Value Lost: $1.6 million.

(4) Roster Summary
Here is a summary of notables trades, Rule 5 transactions (MLB and AAA), and free agency signings. Moves with 40-man roster impact are highlighted.

Thus far, the Brewers have added approximately $23.7 million in total surplus through 40-man roster transactions (this figure does not factor in full reserve control for minor leaguers, but instead focuses on OFP value). That is basically worth 1.7 WARP from a league minimum contract, or 2.75 WARP from Eric Thames (2.75 WARP is worth approximately $19.3 million, minus $15 million guaranteed). In total surplus value, Stearns has acquired approximately $63 million for the organization, which can be translated as approximately 4.5 total WARP from a league minimum salary, or acquiring approximately three 50 OFP prospects via trade.

It is difficult to find the relevant points for constructing marginal analysis of baseball transactions because MLB teams are arguably not in economic competition for resources (they are more effectively viewed as colluding firms seeking to keep other operators — competing baseball leagues — from succeeding). Also, MLB-level talent is so incredibly scarce that it is difficult to say that there is a diminishing return from adding too much talent; this is not the same as hiring too much labor or investing too much into capital infrastructure in a competitive market. To demonstrate the latter point, consider the number of 3.0 WARP players in 2016 MLB (77) compared to 1348 batters; given that teams are willing to employ 148 more batters than the total number of 40-man roster spots (1200) in a season to squeeze out every win, at the very least one would argue that (1) there is no diminishing return on adding impact players, and (2) the best place to look at marginal value would be the cost and production of those additional 148 players cutting their teeth at the edges of the MLB roster. But no one would say that MLB teams should only acquire, say, two 3.0 WARP players, and with their third 3.0 WARP player they lose value.

What does this have to do with anything? The Brewers are doing practically nothing thus far in the 2016-2017 offseason, and some of the moves from GM David Stearns are downright perplexing. Others still are non-events, and some of those moves might still produce another surprise player (like Junior Guerra or Jacob Barnes or Keon Broxton or something). So, while I am not going to be able to offer you a full theory of marginal roster value here, consider that in these early season transactions, we are judging the cost of adding one additional player to the 40-man roster, either at the expense of additional future value to the organization, additional surplus value (in terms of production value, trade value, at a certain contract rate), or additional WARP right now. Since most people still assume the Brewers are rebuilding, let’s forget the third motive for rosterbuilding, and prioritize the first two (I’d even add an asterisk to the first goal, adding future value).

(1) Dreadful, dreadful, terrible move: Not Adding Miguel Diaz to 40-man roster.
Set aside the fact that one of these days, analytical front offices will eventually start plucking intriguing A-ball prospects in the Rule 5 draft with regularity. The Brewers made such an audacious (and brilliant) move when they nabbed LHP Wei-Chung Wang from the Pittsburgh Pirates for the 2014 season, effectively stashed him, and even effectively kept him within the organization after designation for assignment. That was a phenomenal future play for a low-cost asset that addressed a (then) organizational weakness (left-handed starting pitching). Of course, the Brewers neglected to protect Wang from the 2016 Rule 5 draft, which is rather problematic in itself. But Wang himself shows the potential value in toughing it out with an extremely inexperienced professional ballplayer as a Rule 5 pick: Wang improved the system’s starting pitching and replacement pitching depth at low cost. The Padres also demonstrated this strategy by selecting RHP Luis Perdomo in 2016, suggesting that perhaps this is finally the beginning of analytical front offices doing audacious things to find value.

Miguel Diaz is probably a Top Five pitching prospect in the Milwaukee farm system to most evaluators, and if you weigh fastball, secondary stuff, potential command and development, and even risk, the righty could probably also land a Top Three pitching prospect designation on the right day (I’d slot Diaz behind RHP Luis Ortiz and LHP Josh Hader; on my own Brewers list, I have Diaz (easily) ranked within the Top Five Percent of the entire Milwaukee organization (with Ortiz, CF Lewis Brinson, and IF Isan Diaz standing as the One Percenters). In a June 2016 eyewitness report, Diaz landed heady 70 fastball OFP, 60 slider OFP, 55 change OFP, and “ability to throw all three for strikes;” risk comes from level / distance from the MLB, full command development, and delivery repetition. All told, a 60 OFP on Diaz makes him easily one of the best prospects in Milwaukee’s system; one could probably rank him in the Top Five and not think twice.

The Brewers neglected to protect Diaz from the Rule 5 draft. Consider this: if a 60 OFP player might be expected to produce at an above-average level at least once, and maybe produce at an average level at least once, it is quite easy to assign a 4.0 WARP / 2.0 WARP / 1.0 WARP three-year spread for a 60 OFP prospect. Yet, recognizing the risk of reaching that level, and the likelihood of depreciating performance, a harsh depreciation level of 70 percent still lands Diaz a three-year OFP grade of 4.9 WARP; an even harsher depreciation level of 40 percent (10 percent for each level away from the MLB, on top of 70 percent depreciation) still lands Diaz a three-year OFP grade of 2.8 WARP.

What I’m trying to say is this: at the basic cost of less than $0.6 million and maybe a burned option year, the Brewers neglected to find roster space for at least $19.6 million in OFP production value. What’s worse is that that future production does not account for the contract eating into that value (it costs nothing to release Diaz, meaning his $19.6 million minimum future value is completely untouched by his contract), nor does it account for the trade value inherent in (1) his strongest projections and (2) his potential production + potential contract. Miguel Diaz is worth at least $39.2 million to the Milwaukee Brewers in surplus value; but that’s an incomplete picture, as it does not include the full contractual reserve rights for the Brewers (but it’s also less effective to say that Diaz is worth $80 million in surplus value).

That the front office neglected to spend a 40-man roster spot on Diaz is an unforgivable offense. I know that’s harsh, but this is the first true mistake of GM David Stearns’s administration, and here’s why: the whole point of an analytical front office, if one views their aims as different than “winning ballgames,” is (a) to cut costs by steering revenue from players to ownership, (b) maximize WARP / $ ratios, and (c) value process over everything, or rather, create processes that consistently and effectively identify value.That the Brewers could not identify the clear value play in Miguel Diaz for an unforgivable risk in even 1-in-100 scenarios (that is, losing Diaz in the Rule 5 draft, for nothing), by spending nothing more than a 40-man roster spot on the righty, is plainly baffling. Moreover, if another MLB team does not select Diaz, they are also making a mistake and poorly evaluating the cost of stashing $39.2 million in surplus value on their roster.

2017 Opportunity Cost: 5.6 WARP ($39.2 million / $7 million per WARP). Ex., you could probably trade Diaz for a very good MLB player.

(2) Other Rule 5 Guys?
For fun, using slightly different calculations than the process I outlined above for Diaz, from my previous post on “Grading Trades“:

I think there are other claims to be made about protecting someone like Wei-Chung Wang, or even someone like Tyrone Taylor. But, since I just went off about Miguel Diaz for far too many words, let’s just say losing Taylor or Wang would be slightly more forgivable. Notably, Adam Walker has a similar prospect grade to both Taylor and Wang, meaning that the Brewers grabbing Walker at the expense of Wang and Taylor is probably close to a value non-event.

(3) The Waiver Shuffle

David Goforth has a career WARP of 0.3, driven by 24.7 innings worked in 2015 to the tune of 0.4 WARP, on the strength of a 3.44 DRA. On the 2016 Brewers, for context, that performance would have made him the fifth best reliever. Unfortunately, it’s a year removed for Goforth and memories are short and there are no second chances in baseball — scratch that, we’re rebuilding, there are plenty of opportunities for a pitcher such as David Goforth to get another chance in Milwaukee. Unfortunately, in the last 10 days, the Brewers have added Adam Walker, added Blake Parker, subtracted Walker, and now added Steven Geltz. The club designated Goforth for assignment to make room for Parker, which was a positive value play on the margins by approximately 0.3 WARP over six seasons (#ThisIsHowYouWinChampionships).

Much more interesting is the fact that both Geltz and Parker throw splitters according to BrooksBaseball, and even more interesting are both righties potential ties to current Brewers pitching coach Derek Johnson (Parker, potentially in the Cubs system) and Vice President and Assistant General Manager Matt Arnold (Geltz, potentially in the Rays system). It’s hard to dislike the mental picture of Stearns and Arnold emerging from the tank in Miller Park with two hard fought waiver claims based on the organization’s splitter-algorithm that caught Junior Guerra; or I don’t know, maybe like Guerra these signings are scouting-gut “I like this guy getting another chance” deals.

If you’re inclined to wonder why the Brewers are designating Walker for assignment, and inclined to be upset about it, consider the chance that he clears waivers and remains in Milwaukee, accepting a minor league assignment: the club just added a potential play worth $11.6 million in surplus value, to stash away for a rainy day (or by mid-June, we’ll see). Liken this move to the Garin Cecchini move, which was great even though it didn’t work out (or, more properly, has yet to work out). It’s tough to judge Walker’s value against Geltz’s rough WARP performance, but somewhere there’s a spin in that splitter that made someone’s afternoon in the plush offices of Miller Park.

2017 Opportunity Cost: Probably no more than 0.25 WARP assuming Walker clears waivers and accepts assignment ($1.8 million maximum roster space / $7 million per WARP). 1.71 WARP maximum cost ($12 million / $7 million per WARP).

(4)The Carter Misstep?
One of the biggest mistakes baseball fans make is viewing value as “production,” rather than “production + scarcity.” Production may be what it may be, but depending on other teams’ needs or wants, a player’s service time, and a player’s contract (among other factors), “scarcity” can be traded. This is what cannot be missed in the case of Chris Carter, after anyone smugly multiplies 0.8 WARP * $7 million, writes “Chris Carter is not worth salary arbitration,” and wrings their hands. So, while rumors suggest that the Brewers may non-tender Carter should they fail to receive a trade offer for the first baseman, a non-tender option should not necessarily be viewed as a positive event for the 40-man roster. For even at $10 million, Carter has value to the Brewers: he has three-year depreciation value at 2.66 WARP ($18.6 million), and two years of arbitration control (at zero cost to non-tender, worth approximately $12.4 million). Carter, at the very least, is worth $18.6 million to the Brewers, and even with harsh depreciation he could be worth as much as $24.8 million to Milwaukee. If you’re unimpressed by this, Carter’s contract surplus and production for one season is worth approximately $11.2 million.

Perhaps this rumor by the Brewers is a public relations plot, or perhaps it is an effort to negotiate a different contract with Carter (imagine a two year, $18 million contract, for example, which would pay Carter 100% of his production value, and 50% of his surplus value). This scenario would be valuable to the Brewers for several reasons: (1) No one better is available at 1B within the system; (2) Carter is relatively dependable; (3) the club still maintains trade value with that contract; and (4) Who cares, the team is sitting on $60 million already and there’s another $60 million due in 2017, and Carter can hit home runs like this:

Do you think Carter was aiming for his picture on the scoreboard? Anyway, the point is, it’s not enough to look at Carter’s production alone and judge a potential non-tender. In the context of the Brewers organization, and even the 2016-2017 first base free agency market, there is little opportunity cost in keeping Carter and paying him grand slam bucks. One of the few MLB free agents that would improve on Carter’s value is Steve Pearce, whose 5.39 WARP three-year depreciation score doubles Carter’s.

2017 Opportunity Cost: 3.5 WARP ($24.8 million / $7 million per WARP). Just pay the slugger!

(5) Total 2017 Opportunity Cost: 9.35 WARP ($65.5M). What this means is that Stearns is willing to pay $65.5M for these roster moves, or rather, that these roster moves have given him the space to find 9.35 WARP. In more straightforward language, the forthcoming roster moves will need to generate 9.35 WARP to balance the roster from these moves.

Given that Parker may have worked with Derek Johnson when he was in the Chicago Cubs organization (or that Johnson may have been familiar with Parker), it is worth looking into Parker’s curve as one of his sources for 2013 success (including a 51 K / 18 BB / 2 HR performance in 46.3 innings, helping to drive a 3.40 DRA):

If there’s cause for concern, it’s Parker’s fastball, which has declined to draw whiffs and become more hittable after 2013 (even then it was his most hittable pitch among his fastball, curve, and split).

Parker’s splitter became more prominent after 2013, along with the fastball, which leads one to wonder whether the Brewers liked Parker because of the splitter (perhaps they have used Junior Guerra’s split as a base to help form decisions about picking up specific pitches from the waiver wire). Yet, it’s Parker’s curveball that jumps out the most as a potential key to reclaiming 2013 success — incidentally, when Parker selected it the most, his fastball was the least hittable among these three seasons.