weaver dream

by lboros on Jan 12, 2006 3:28 PM EST in St. Louis Cardinals News

mlbtraderumors is wondering whether we think jeff weaver might be a fit for the cardinals. yesterday ken rosenthal rather casually named the cards as a possible destination for the starter, whose deadline for returning to the dodgers has passed; he can't negotiate with them until may 1. specifically, mlbtrade want to know how much payroll space the cardinals could allocate to weaver if they wanted to sign him. i'm not sure they do want to sign him, nor that i want them to want to sign him . . . . but set those questions aside for now. if they did want to, could they?

at the moment, no -- by my count about $87 million of the projected $90m payroll is spent, and there still is at least one hole in the bullpen to fill. theoretically a weaver signing would be followed by a marquis (or suppan) trade, freeing up some additional payroll room, but keep in mind that if they trade marquis for an outfielder with a roughly equal salary (like for example my fave, brad wilkerson), they won't actually gain anything payroll-wise. so for this to have any chance of working, marquis would have to be dealt for a young, cheap, and possibly unproven player. here's how it might break down:

current payroll clearance: $3m
plus additional clearance w trade of marquis: $4m
minus presumed cost of fe'x rodriguez: $2m
equals remainder available for weaver: $5m

not enough, but maybe close. weaver -- a scott boras client -- is said to be looking for a deal similar to what the boras-repped kevin millwood and jerrod washburn received, ie $10m a year over 4-5 years. i don't think he's gonna get it -- budgets are pretty well exhausted around mlb, and weaver is just not that good a pitcher. my guess is he settles for something more like matt morris-paul byrd money, ie $8m-$9m a year over 3 years.

so if the cards were just dying to accommodate weaver within their stated payroll limit, they could:

sign a cheaper reliever (eg jeff nelson) instead of felix rodriguez, and devote all of their payroll clearance to weaver
flex their payroll to $92m and backload the contract, with only $6m-$7m showing up on the current-year payroll
trade marquis for a young and cheap setup man, eliminating the need to spend any of their payroll clearance on a reliever and letting them devote the entire amount to weaver

i don't think any of this is terribly likely, and here's why: jason marquis is just as good as weaver and can probably be signed to an extension for far less money than what weaver is seeking. they already have six starting pitchers; do they really need to have a seventh before they feel comfortable making a trade? this is a cautious front office, but it's not that cautious. moreover, it's a bargain-oriented operation; bidding against six other teams (or whatever it is) for a scott boras client is no way to beat the market.

so i guess my answer is: yes, there are knots the cardinals could tie themselves into in order to fit jeff weaver into the payroll; but no, i don't think they would be inclined to go that route.

speaking of free-agent pitchers, idle thought: when julian tavarez goes into the hall of fame, will he go in as a cardinal or a red sock?

Tweet Comment 33 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Marquis

Totally agree, I think that people are seriously undervaluing Marquis--not only as a pitcher, but his value relative to the organization and the other pitching talent that is out there. Marquis has shown the potential to post an era between 3.50 and 4.00, and win 15 games. He's not a fireballer, and he's a headcase, but he's a young headcase, who can possibly be un-headcased by Duncan. I don't think the Cards are (or should be) falling all over themselves to replace Marquis with an older, more expensive, possibly less headcasey version.

Question...what do you think a potential contract extension for Marquis could/should look like?

by farley503 on Jan 12, 2006 3:41 PM EST reply actions

Marquis extension

$4M, $5M, $6M for 3 years; with a $500,000 incentive for every home run he hits, and $20,000 per base hit.

by STLEdge on Jan 12, 2006 3:45 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah.

That said, seeing him go to bring in a long term outfield solution wouldn't make me cry. But yeah, other than that, he's likely worth keeping.

by Valatan on Jan 12, 2006 3:56 PM EST up reply actions

if marquis would bring outfield help

i would trade him and stick ponson in there. sidney will probably be about as good as weaver would be, but he'll cost about $6m less than weaver in current-year payroll

by lboros on Jan 12, 2006 4:53 PM EST up reply actions

Outfield help

As I said before, just teach hime to shag some flys. He can be his own OF help.

by Zubin on Jan 12, 2006 8:29 PM EST up reply actions

Money wise...

If you were to trade Marquis, wouldn't you trade Marquis AND an outfielder for an outfielder? So there's another extra bit of cash freed up.

Not that I'm in favor of trading Marquis. I don't worry too much about him.

by sdrone on Jan 12, 2006 4:05 PM EST reply actions

Weaver

Weaver would be a definite downgrade from Marquis. Marquis is a good young pitcher and I think there would be less trade speculation about him if he hadn't bitched in last year's playoffs and if he would listen to Dave Duncan more frequently. He could certainly fetch a decent return by himself or he could be part of a package that nets an upgrade for the rotation (Contreras), but most likely he's staying put for 2005. There's no reason to sign Weaver unless there's a bigger deal on the horizon, but I don't see a bigger deal since we traded for Bigbie and signed Ponson and Encarnacion. Why acquire those players then deal them with Marquis for something bigger? It doesn't fit Jocketty's M.O. It would be great, but I don't think it's likely. Weaver would be a step back and the addition of Ponson doesn't make that proposition any better.

by I Bleed Cardinal Red on Jan 12, 2006 4:20 PM EST reply actions

Who needs Weaver when you've got...

...Anthony Reyes! I just shook his hand. Geez, I feel like a nine year-old. He was at the Cards Caravan in sunny Champaign, Illinois. I couldn't make it to the caravan, but my co-worker called me to tell me that he was having a beer at Hooters with Reyes (post caravan), so I sped over there and introduced myself just as he was leaving. Brad Thompson and John Gall were there, too. (As well as Danny Cox!) I think Thompson looks even younger in person, if that's possible. John started to introduce himself to me, as if I wouldn't know who he was, and I said, "I know who you are, John Gall. Good luck to you this year. You deserve some at bats." He smiled and nodded in agreement.

Anyway, I love reading your analysis here at VEB, but sometimes it's great to just bask in the simplicity of fandom: today I got to meet a guy who threw 50+ consecutive scoreless innings in AA/AAA; a future Cy Young Award winner; and the walking definition of a Quadruple-A player. Woo-hoo!

by PhatAlbert on Jan 12, 2006 4:23 PM EST reply actions

nice, phat

thanks for the report

by lboros on Jan 12, 2006 4:50 PM EST up reply actions

Son of a Gun!

I live in Champaign and foolishly stayed at work instead of heading over to the Caravan.

A beer at Hooters with that crowd would have been the highlight of the year.

Hopefully the folks in Decatur don't mind them showing up with a few beers in 'em.

by liam on Jan 12, 2006 6:02 PM EST up reply actions

Brad Thompson having a beer?

Poor guy, he'll probably get carded until he's 40 ...

by DCRedbird on Jan 12, 2006 7:43 PM EST up reply actions

why sign Marquis to an extension

the organization doesn't need him down the road, and getting some value out of a trade for him now, during the season, or afterward.

With Carp and Mulder good for another two years (if they sign Mulder) or so. By then Reyes and Wainwright (maybe) or even Pomeranz are in the rotation and it's rounded out by another classic fifth starter type, a cheap reclamation guy if Dunc and TLR are still around then.

The only reason I would sign Marquis to an extension is so I could trade him with a contract that is as attractive to an organization as his arm.

Cardinals Diaspora

by Ryan Van Bibber on Jan 12, 2006 5:13 PM EST reply actions

Question:

Long term, do you see a huge difference between Marquis and Mulder? I've been wondering about this a bit, and I almost think that Marquis has more long term potential than Mulder does, but will cost vastly less to re-sign. I've been harping on this a lot, but I haven't really heard anyone disagree with me, either.

by Valatan on Jan 12, 2006 6:33 PM EST up reply actions

Mulder v Marquis

Without taking an extensive look at the numbers, although I have them open in front of me, Marquis spoiled us all with his 2004 season when he went 15-7. Is it possible for him to do that again? I think it may be. I think the problem with Mulder is that although he has the ability to be a upper-rotation pitcher he isn't of the power pitcher variety. Given his name recognition and the propensity for him to attract upwards of double Marquis salary, I'd say I'd rather see him go and let Marquis pound out some low-4.00 ERA seasons with 13-17 wins. I don't know that it's worth signing Mulder to a 8-9 million when we could spend 2-3 million more and get a good power pitcher for that slot. The only caveat to that is that Mulder was pretty durn good in the postseason with only a 2.45 ERA. He went toe to toe with Oswalt and both times gave us a legitimate chance to win the game.

by azruavatar on Jan 12, 2006 10:15 PM EST up reply actions

i'm not

all that taken with Mulder, but he's a lefty, and while I worry about his ability to K, he can slide into the rotation and eek out a Glavine role for himself.

Cardinals Diaspora

by Ryan Van Bibber on Jan 13, 2006 9:11 AM EST up reply actions

NO WEAVER

please. Just keep Marquis or blow out the stops for Zito. Weaver is always hurt and not as good as Marquis when healthy. If it's not gonna be a real upgrade, why bother? And as Phat reminds us--Reyes may be ready to rock too.

by rockin redbird on Jan 12, 2006 5:16 PM EST reply actions

Weaver always hurt?

not since he joined the majors.

by Just Rope Ball on Jan 12, 2006 6:06 PM EST up reply actions

Yep

I stand corrected on the DL comment. In fact, it looks like durability may be Weaver's best quality. Thanx Brewdog--musta been looking at somebody else's page. Regardless--I still don't like Weaver. He's a headcase who gets rattled easily and then gives up too many homers. Marquis has a similar problem but seems more able to get ahold of himself. I'm not a big Marquis fan, but I'd rather keep him than replace him with a more expensive version.

by rockin redbird on Jan 12, 2006 9:47 PM EST up reply actions

Also...

looks like the Flubs are interested too. Let them have him--I'd much rather they get Weaver than Zito.

by rockin redbird on Jan 12, 2006 9:55 PM EST up reply actions

Tavarez

Will Tavarez go into the Hall of Fame as a Cardinal or a Red Sock?!?!

Neither. He'll go in as a visitor.

by punditmoi on Jan 12, 2006 6:38 PM EST reply actions

ouch.

matty fred is a web log.

by matty fred on Jan 12, 2006 6:47 PM EST up reply actions

Weaver

Why? He's not worth the $. A career 4.11 ERA and a losing record is worth $10 x 5? If that was true why wouldn't the Cards have resigned Morris, who at least has a better ERA a much better record and could have been had for less money. Granted Weaver is younger, but so far all that means is more time to lose more games and watch his ERA rise. As for picking up Weaver to trade Marquis - that makes even less sense. Let hope Weaver goes to the Red Sox or back to the Yankees, since they enjoy overpaying for players so much. Last bit - I'd rather take my chances that Ponson has something to prove or that Reyes will have a great year.

by stlcardsfan73 on Jan 12, 2006 6:52 PM EST reply actions

Disagree

I think Weaver is a great sign for the Cardinals. I would love to see us pick him up and think he would be something of a deal at $5 million.

Make take on him is that he could not handle the stage of New York and Yankee Stadium. It got in his head (something like Rick Ankiel) he was much worse pitcher there than he would be anywhere else. He started to come around last year and got his numbers back to the Detroit range. I think they will come down even further, especially with the relaxed outlook of st. louis fan. I think he'll get a big boost in confidence if he gets cheered even after a bad outing, and we will see continued improvement over his career numbers.

I will point you too his Whip and Ks as evidence of a good pitcher who make a few mental mistakes a game -- which cost runs in the form of homers. Its the same reason I really wanted us to get Javier Vazquez.

Don't underestimate the power positive support by fans can have on a ball player. I think its why a lot of times players don't perform as expected when they go to the Yankees and why they do perform for the years they are in St. Louis. Weaver is a prime candidate for this syndrome.

by Westy on Jan 12, 2006 7:02 PM EST reply actions

Another thing to be aware of with him

is that DET and LA both have extreme pitchers' parks

by Valatan on Jan 12, 2006 10:24 PM EST up reply actions

weaver/ponson

interesting that the pitcher closest to weaver at this age is...

sidney ponson.

who we already have. one's enough, right?

by shawnz303 on Jan 12, 2006 7:40 PM EST reply actions

Boras won't allow

Weaver to sign for a "mere" $5 million, unless it's the best offer he gets. Besides, wth do they need him for? Two words come to mind here: common sense

by cardsrul on Jan 12, 2006 8:44 PM EST reply actions

Marquis

Marquis won around 10 games in a row in 2004 he can put it together and has. he just needs to work on consistency

by 2ndprize on Jan 12, 2006 11:54 PM EST reply actions

Weaver

I agree with cardrul - no way Weaver signs for $5 million. He made $8 or $9 million last year (sorry, I forget) and is looking for a 4 year, $40 million deal. Why would he take half of that?

I think we're fine with what we have unless we can make a deal for Contreras (sorry I keep harping on this subject). I think Reyes will have a good year and will be a great pitcher for us for many years to come.

Ryan VB, you forgot about Lambert. He should be in the bigs within a few years (hopefully). He seems like he has the stuff to be a #2 or #3 for us.

by I Bleed Cardinal Red on Jan 13, 2006 8:27 AM EST reply actions

correction

apologies, I wasn't really thinking when I wrote $5 mil. agreed that it will take more than that to get him. Still, even at $8-9 million, I think weaver will be worth it.
#1 - you can never have too much pitching.
#2 - I think Ponson is a bloated cow who won't do anything in St. Louis.
#3 - I think Weaver is a better pitcher than Marquis (although not as good a hitter). I base this on their WHIPs, which I think is much more telling than their record. I think the ERA will eventually come around.
#4 - If Ponson happens to work out, you can trade Marquis for outfield help. Or better yet, trade Ponson.

I will agree that getting into $10 million may be too much.

by Westy on Jan 13, 2006 10:56 AM EST reply actions

Marquis vs. Weaver

I like WHIP, too, but I suspect that if Marquis had pitched in LA recently (a more pitcher friendly park), he'd have a lower WHIP as well.

Check out the ERA"+ numbers over the last 3 years for each pitcher. Marquis (75, 113, 103) has been better than Weaver each and every year (73, 103, 96).

If the Cards can sign him cheap, great. But spending $9 million a year on a guy that has been just worse than Marquis over the past 3 years? Might as well just stick with Marquis for less money.

by Robb on Jan 13, 2006 12:18 PM EST up reply actions

the park

I'm not sure pitching in Dodger stadium out does pitching under the tutelage of Duncan and LaRussa. One could make a very good argument, I think that we have seen Marquis max out his potential here, while their is a good change Dave and Tony could get better stuff out of Weaver than he has been putting up else where. Perhaps I am buying into the Duncan/LaRussa cult of personality, but I do think it is a fair point.

Another, equally fair point against Weaver is that, if he didn't perform well in NY, he likely won't perform well in the playoffs, another big stage. I discount that though because 1) Marquis didn't pitch much in the Playoffs so it is not like you need him or he would be replacing a playoff stud; and 2) I think with his confidence built by st. louis fans during the season, we would see Weaver more relaxed on the big stage. Again though, reasonable people can and will disagree with my assessment on this point.

by Westy on Jan 13, 2006 3:17 PM EST up reply actions