UPDATED:thoughts on whether or not it is worth it to resign weaver

by redbirdnation on Jan 14, 2007 2:37 PM EST Comment 36 comments

If the Cardinals are truly interested in re singning Weaver, I think that they will be posed with an interesting question. Lets look at it from a short term point of view first.
With Mulder rehabing, and most likely will not be 100% until late July early August, we are still short an SP. Franklin to me is a terrible candidate for the fifth spot in the rotation. I would much rather see thompson/ hawksworth/ narveson get some experience because they are part of the Cardinals future unlike the 34 year old franklin. The other option of course is Weaver. If we do resign him it will be to at least a 3 year contract, but right now lets only look at it for how he will help the Cardinals only next year. In this case I think he is a good pick for the last spot in the rotation. I think that Narveson and Hawksworth could use another year getting ready, and can get some mlb experience in the bullpen much like Wainwright did.

If you look at it from a long term point of view, this is probably not a very good move. Lets assume that the Kip Wells has a good season, and is worth resiging. We would potentially have 8 starters competing for 5 spots next year. Mulder will be healthy, and hawksworth, narveson, and thompson will probably be in there two. What scares me is that giving Weaver a contract for 3 or more years will block Wainwright and send him back into the bullpen. I just dont see why giving Weaver a multi year deal is a smart thing to do.

So I think the Cardinals need to ask themselves is he really going to help the team past next year: the answer is no. He is just going to block one of the young pitchers, and also a possible big name free agent signing. I think signing Weaver would be a good idea if we can get him to sign a one year deal, but other than that let someone else give him 4/40. As we all just saw in lboros fiary, the Cardinals are looking at signing Weaver to a two year deal. I think he is definately worth signing if he doesnt go higher than 2/14-16. However, If this deal does get done, the question still stands, does wainwright get bumbed back into the bullpen after the '06 season. If he does I think this is a terrible deal. Although Wells only has a one year deal so if he just pitches average or a little bit above average we do not need to resign him and head into the '07 season w/ a rotaion of: Carp, Mulder, Weaver, Reyes, Wainwright, pending no trades or FA signings.....Any thoughts?

0 recs | Comment 36 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

First of all

I disagree with your premise that Weaver will get at least a 3 or 4 year contract. It seems to me that he's running out of options and probably wants to come back to the Cards. I think he's looking at a 2 year deal from St. Louis, maybe with a 3rd year option.

This is a great option b/c a couple of days ago it was suggested that resigning Weaver would possibly lead to a trade of Reyes. Instinctively, I would oppose signing Weaver only to trade Reyes b/c young pitching is the most valuable commodity out there. But what if a trade of Reyes could bring you Rocco Baldelli or Alex Rios? What if the Cards could trade Reyes for, say, 2 younger pitchers as the W. Sox did when they traded Brandon McCarthy? A trade for an OF could then free up Duncan to be traded for a younger pitcher, thus gaining us several years of young pitching + a very good OF to put in our everyday lineup, not to mention someone to put in CF when Edmonds sits or retires in 2 years.

I really don't think the question is "Do we or don't we resign Weaver for 3 or 4 years?" I just don't think he'll get more than 2 from anyone. To me, the question is more, is it a good idea to sign him AND trade Reyes for younger pitching or a young OF? To me, this is a really interesting dilemma.

by chuckb on Jan 14, 2007 2:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think he can still get 3 years

The mets, who are said to be interested, will probably be willing to give him three years. I would like to see him back, but I dont see why we should trade reyes.

by redbirdnation on Jan 14, 2007 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What i've read

is that the Mets are not interested. They're leery of how he pitched when he pitched for the Yankees. Now, if the price came down to the point where he was only going to get a 1 year deal, as he did last offseason, maybe they'd take that step. But I don't think the Mets will go beyond that.

by chuckb on Jan 14, 2007 3:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I think it is more and more likely that he would sign with the Cards for one year and probably about 8-10 million. I just don't see the market for him.

The only other team that I have heard rumored to be interested is Seattle. I would think he would prefer to come back to STL for one year to prove himself in order to get a Suppan or Meche-like deal next year.

by OCCardsFan on Jan 14, 2007 5:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Padres

Rosenthal says the Friars would prefer Weaver over David Wells, if the price is right.

by liam on Jan 14, 2007 6:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

but

Do you really think trading McCarthy was a good deal? He'll probably be a stud in Texas, just like he would've been in Chicago. I'd personally rather not trade Reyes. The guy can pitch and he's young. No reason to trade him. A deal with Weaver wouldn't be a horrible option because then we don't have to worry about resigning Wells next year. Wells is scary because the only reason we'd get him for a good price next year is if he has a bad season this year. And if he has a good season this year, his price will soar.

With that said, I'm still more of a fan of Narverson or Hawksworth until we get Mulder back.

On with the youth movement!

by aet15 on Jan 14, 2007 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I absolutely

think trading McCarthy was a good trade for the Sox. He's a severe fly ball pitcher who was going to run into problems in Comiskey and will likely have problems in Texas as well. For McCarthy, they got 2 pitchers, 1 of whom will probably be at least as good as McCarthy (Danks). The other fills a spot in their bullpen. On top of that, b/c of McCarthy's service time, he's just 4 years from free agency while the Sox will have Danks for 6 years before he becomes a free agent. Even if McCarthy is good, Danks will be, too, and they got themselves a solid reliever to boot!

by chuckb on Jan 14, 2007 11:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly right

It's a 2 for 1 (locked up for years) and they believe the reliever could be nasty.

The Sox seem to be developing a philosophy of a hard throwing bullpen.

by sdrone on Jan 15, 2007 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But

That's beside the point. McCarthy could've become a starter -- a role which he has thrived at each time attempting. He was dazzling as a starter for the Sox, then they moved him to the pen and he struggled. Maybe I just watch the Sox much more because I live in Chicago land, but from watching them, I can tell you that he was excellent as a starter, and a fan favorite in terms of prospects. I'm sure they could've received a similar deal for another one of their starters considering that Texas isn't exactly loaded with starting pitching.

On with the youth movement!

by aet15 on Jan 15, 2007 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How is that beside the point?

They'll have 6 years of Danks AND 6 years of Masset and gave up 4 years of McCarthy. McCarthy may be very good but Danks will probably be at least as good, if not better. Even if they're equal, the Sox got 2 more years w/ Danks + a reliever who should help them for 6 years. It was a great trade for the Sox and if Walt could turn Reyes into a pitcher who's about 1 year away + another reliever and get 12 years of good pitching for Reyes' 4, he should do that in a heartbeat (assuming Weaver is signed).

by chuckb on Jan 15, 2007 4:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Signing Weaver

would be a disaster. There is no reason to bring back another average, middle of the rotation starting pitcher. Why would you bring back Jeff Weaver, when there are younger, cheaper options in house already? The Cardinals have guys that can fill a middle or back of the rotation spot for a whole lot less than what it would cost for Weaver. And as far as trading Anthony Reyes, I will go on record right now as saying that such a trade would be one of the worst moves Jocketty could possibly make. To trade away a young, cheap pitcher with tremendous upside, just to replace him with an overpriced journeyman, would destroy my faith in the front office. And don't kid yourself. Tampa Bay is not going to part with Carl Crawford for any kind of reasonable price.

by the red baron on Jan 14, 2007 3:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

dream weaver

i'd go as high as 3/21 for weaver. i think he can be solid...he had two decent years with the dodgers before blowing up in 2006. he is durable. he is now playoff tested. if he had a halfway decent 2007 with the cards he should actually be a good trade chip if we didnt want him anymore.

by dmb60614 on Jan 14, 2007 3:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Not necessarily a mistake

2 years with a third year team option isn't a bad idea.

Narveson doesn't appear to be rated as a future top of the rotation type of guy--obviously you can't know how a guy will react untill he's in the big leagues, but it seems like baseball is the one sport where you don't WANT your young guys on the field if they're not fully ready. It seems to break the psyches of too many pitchers. Hawksworth is the same way. Franklin and Thompson should be the ones competing for that 5th spot until Mulder returns.

The only problem I have with a Weaver signing is exactly what lboros has been saying about the Mulder signing--I think it would make it VERY unlikely that they would seek an arm on the trade market at the deadline.

Although, this is probably a meaningless conversation, since 100M seems to be the magic number for the budget, and I doubt Weaver will sign for 5M or less.

by mtalken on Jan 14, 2007 7:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Weaver

I think the Weaver we saw last fall is the real deal. If that is so then he will be a legit #2. I think he will have a better '07 the Jason Schmidt at a fraction of the price.

What I think doesn't matter. What Poppa Dunc think does. The only way the Cards sign Weaver is they believe in him. So why doubt the best pitching coach in MLB.

With very little interest from around the league, and Weaver's interest in returning he might be signed as a real bargin.

Once Weaver is signed we will have a plenty of pitching so that a trade might be made for another outfielder. Tampa was listening to offers for Crawford as well as Baldelli.

I was in favor of offering Reyes, Duncan, and anyone else it took to get Crawford. I was ripped for making the suggestion.

How good are Naverson, and Hawksworth anyway? Would Tampa part with Crawford for Navi, Reyes, and Duncan? How about the Marlins? What would they want for Cabrera? The Yankees have Melky. He might be the easiest to get. Maybe we keep Duncan and platoon him with Melky?

We might have options, or we might stand pat. It does give us something to think about!

by nybirdfan on Jan 14, 2007 11:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

D-rays

The D-rays are notorious for asking way too much for their players and never being able to make a deal. They traded Aubrey Huff about 3 years later than they should have and didn't get much in return. They'll likely ask for 4 or 5 prospects for the Cards for Crawford.

And Cabrera isn't going anywhere...at least not this season. He's still a bargain.

And there's no way in hell Weaver has a better season than Schmidt. He never has before so why would he start now?

by themang on Jan 15, 2007 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Never??

how about 2005.

Weaver was 14-11 4.22 and 224 ip's 154 so

Schmidt was 12-7 4.40 and 172 ip's 165 so

In '06 Schmidt got the era down to 3.59 but was only 11-9.

Schmidt signed a 3y 47m

Weaver we are not sure but maybe 2y 14m with incentives and option or there abouts.

So I still think that "IF" Duncan believes he is for real than he will be a legit #2 and out perform Schmidt.

by nybirdfan on Jan 15, 2007 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

OK

I stand corrected (somewhat). Weaver has had one season that was slightly better than Schmidt. W-L don't tell you anything about a pitcher though.

Plus, Schmidt's 2005 was one of his worst, if not the worst season he's ever had. So Weaver's best is equal to Schmidt's worst.

by themang on Jan 15, 2007 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

OK

What about Schmidt's Pittsbugh years. Granted they were with the a horrible Bucs team, but not real dissimular to Weaver's years with the Tiger's.

My point isn't that Weaver has had a better career, by point is going forward Weaver has a better upside. I also say "IF Duncan believes in him." Are Weaver and Duncan on the same page? I can see Weaver having A career year next season. Something like 16-10 with era under 4. Weaver turns 31 in August.

Schmidt is 34 years old and has two years in a row that are off his peak. I can see him going 14-12 with and era in the upper 3's. Zips has him at 12-8 with a 3.94. 10 mil for Schmidt's money is deffered, but lets call it 3y/47m. 15.67 mil a year.

Let's say Weaver signs 2y/16m (I and hoping it will be less with incentives.) I say he finishes the year 16-10 3.95. Zips has him 11-11 with a 4.28. Lets wait til the end of the year and see what has happened. It will be fun! I can't wait.

Oh, if Weaver signs elsewhere all bets are off.

by nybirdfan on Jan 15, 2007 6:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One last thing

Schmidt has had an ERA under 4.00 4 times in his career with his all-time high ERA (non-injured season) being 4.60. His last 5 seasons are:

4.07
3.45
2.34
3.20
4.40
3.59

Is an ERA of 3.59 really "off his peak"? That's a pretty good ERA in this day and age. To be honest, I have no idea how ZiPS figures he'll just up .4 points while pitching in Dodger Stadium, but whatever.

by themang on Jan 15, 2007 7:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Weaver

Just to add...Weaver has had one season ever under 4.00 and that was 5 years ago and since it's been:

5.99
4.01
4.22
5.76

I can't see your argument unless it's just a gut feeling. The numbers don't really back up your point.

by themang on Jan 15, 2007 7:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Right! of course it is a gut feeling

I thought I have been clear from the beginning.

The Weaver we saw last fall is for real. 3-1 in Sept with a 4.15. 3-2 in the post season with a 2.43. Project that over 32 starts.
It doesn't matter what I THINK it only matters what Duncan thinks!
The Cards don't sign Weaver if Duncan thinks last fall was a fluke.

4 The Cards sign him because Duncan thinks he is for real. If he is for real he out performs Schmidt.

It is all conjecture. I know that. I thought that was clear all along, but I am willing to make a wager. LOL. I only brought up 2005 'cause you said "NEVER"

by nybirdfan on Jan 16, 2007 12:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

d-rays asking too much

FYI - they recently shook up the front office, replaced lamarr and a few others. what they did in the past isnt too relevant anymore.

i still dont think we could afford crawford or baldelli.

by dmb60614 on Jan 15, 2007 2:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

True

I guess you're right on that one. But we are still talking about a team with about 5 or 6 good OF and no pitching (well not much anyways). They should trade Baldelli to the highest bidder to make room for Dukes.

I think a Baldelli for Reyes trade would be perfect for the Rays, but I don't think they'll do that.

by themang on Jan 15, 2007 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

D-Rays

For one, would you trade Crawford if he was on your team? The Rays have a ton of young talent, and really don't need more prospects (especially outfield and first basemen).

As for Huff, they didnt trade him when he was good. Got his good years out of him, and then unloaded him when he was having a miserable season. I don't see anything wrong with that . . .

I don't know if you pay attention to the D-Rays, but they don't really need more prospects, that's why they don't want to unload Crawford or Baldelli easily. For one of those guys, they'd need AT LEAST two major league starting pitchers (and by that I mean much more proven than we can afford to offer).

On with the youth movement!

by aet15 on Jan 15, 2007 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Rays

I pay attention to the Rays because I find them really interesting.

What they need is a guy just like Reyes: major league ready, young and most importantly...cheap. They don't need 5 or 6 major league ready OFs. They need a young pitcher for now and the future. Reyes looks like he fits the bill perfectly. He has a chance to be pretty good now and really good later. If they were able to get him for Baldelli, then they'd still have a lineup of:

C-Navarro
1B-Cantu
2B-Zobrist
SS-Upton/that other SS prospect-can't remember his name
3B-Longoria
OF-Dukes
OF-Crawford
OF-Young
DH-Gomes

That's a great lineup without Baldelli. I think they'd be dumb not to trade him soon for a good, young, major league ready pitcher.

No if I were them I'd never trade Crawford. But Huff, in my opinion, should've been traded when his value was really high. Now I admit I don't know much about what the Astros gave up for him but I'm guessing they would've gotten more in return for him when he was still up. It's not like they needed him for a playoff push or anything.

by themang on Jan 15, 2007 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Reyes won't get Crawford

but he could get Baldelli. We may have to throw in some low-level prospect or something but we'd have to throw in something else significant to get Crawford IMO.

by chuckb on Jan 15, 2007 4:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh I agree

Crawford's not going anywhere unless Tampa gets wowed and the Cards don't have what it takes.

But my point is the Rays could use Reyes more than Baldelli. So a heads up trade wouldn't be terrible for both clubs. Now some people would say that Baldelli is worth a lot more than Reyes. But I disagree. Baldelli is going to start cashing in soon because of his time in the league. Reyes won't for awhile. The Rays would probably love to have a guy of Reyes's stature for 4 years without having to pay him a significant amount of money.

As for Crawford, I don't even consider that a reasonable consideration. Baldelli's the only one of the Rays that the Birds could get for Reyes.

by themang on Jan 15, 2007 4:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ok then

Lets say the D-Rays call u and make the offer Baldelli for Reyes. Do you pull the trigger? This assumes the Weaver signing.

I have been worried about the outfield all winter. JaunE is average. Duncan worries me, and Jimmy will need help. The outfield bench is still undetermind, but it could be P.Wilson and Taguchi. Jrod has possiblities, but they would be slim if the Cards sign Wilson. The outfield needs a boost do you any other idea's?

by nybirdfan on Jan 16, 2007 12:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Probably not

But that doesn't make it a bad deal. I'd sign Craig Wilson and keep Reyes.

I was looking at that trade in terms of how it would affect the Rays, not the Cards. It would be a great trade in my opinion for the Rays.

by themang on Jan 16, 2007 9:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

it would be nice

to have a surplus of starting pitching again.

by sjoshi on Jan 15, 2007 12:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Sign him!

If the birds have a chance to sign aguy who helpeduswin a world series,who clearly has a GREAT working relationship with D.Duncan...THEN WHY THE HECK NOT!?!?! Especially if the price has come down. I mean, if there is one thing we should ALL KNOW and have learned over the last decade is that EVEN decent pitching is hard to come by!!!!

On another subject, the only trade for any player that would be worth making in my opinion is if we can get Miguel Cabrera to bat in front of Pujols! But even if we could get him I wouldn't even think of giving up Reyes!

by onebigdummy on Jan 15, 2007 1:13 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Actually

I like the idea of Cabrera hitting in fourth behind Pujols.

by nybirdfan on Jan 15, 2007 9:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

narvason

i think is a most to be a 4A pitcher . to good for triple A but not good enough to be good at the major league level. sign weaver. then worry about whos spot mulder takes in july. with carp ,weav,wain,reyes,wells will be good enough to get to july. but if the marins would trade cabrea for reyes .they should do it, but i think that would be a very long shot

SWH

by BRINGBACKWILSON on Jan 15, 2007 4:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

still too many question marks without him

The biggest reason I'd like to see them snag Weaver is that it would give the Cardinals more flexibility w/ Wainwright (espcically come postseason). Izzy is no sure thing coming back from surgery and the thought of Looper as closer scares me more than the thought of Looper as #5 starter (as a #5 starter at worst he will shit the bed in 3-5 games and get yanked from the rotation - as a closer he can fuck us all season and will be blowing Carpenter's leads instead of his own).

I like Wainwright as the #5 starter for the first half (pre-Mulder), with the potential to slide him to the pen if the rotation is sound come late July early August. Obviously if Adam is having a great year we'll leave him in the rotation, but if he's in the neighborhood of .500 with an ERA over 4 it may not be a bad idea to give him a break from starting (during the dog days) to make room for Mulder.

Every team has question marks going into the season and every team has to deal with unforseen issues (injuries, sudden decline, etc...). We could luck out and have everything break our way (Izzy comes back to be a reliable closer, Wainwright and Reyes have breakout seasons, Wells churns out quality starts on a regular basis, everyone stays healthy), but it's not all that likely. Adding Weaver would mean one of the guys we're counting on could flop or get hurt and we'd still be ok. Without Weaver, one flop/injury could start a chain of events that could unravel our entire pitching staff (by asking guys to do more than they're capable of - we create additional holes without filling any).

I'm not saying we should guarantee a 3rd year or anything (we don't NEED to win in 2007), but he would really tie the room together so to speak.

by musial6 on Jan 15, 2007 11:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

resigning weaver

Resigning Weaver means Wainwright is ticketed for the bullpen to succeed Isringhausen after '07 or in a trade later this summer. That means more cash to extend Pujols whose clock will be ticking loudly sooner than you think.

by carys on Jan 15, 2007 7:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Actually...

Resigning Weaver means somebody gets sent down/released...cuz our 40-man is full. Unless they trade someone first.

As a result, I frankly don't see that happening. But I've been surprised before, so I guess we'll see. If they did sign him, I'd be super-pissed if they sent Reyes down, but it'd probably be JRod that would get the boot.

I think Weaver's upside could be better than his ZiPS projection, but I just don't see him being as "affordable" a risk as some of the kids or the reclamation projects (Wells, Franklin). It'd have to be a hell of a discount, and I certainly can't see a 3 year deal...but maybe the 2 + club option.

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

by Mr Clean on Jan 15, 2007 10:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs