PDA

View Full Version : Jeff Weaver



redsandrails
02-05-2006, 02:02 AM
Insider lists Reds as an interested team with a question mark. Makes a little sense with Castellini taking over to try to make a splash but Boras client and at least a milton type contract unless a one year deal. I liked him but he probably wouldn't be a great fit considering he gave up 35 HR with half his games at Dodger Stadium. If he returned to his Tiger form (even though that too was a pitcher's park) then he'd be pretty decent but I think I would balk personally unless a short deal.

GAC
02-05-2006, 05:15 AM
Milton and Weaver pitching at GAB.... fans in the Moondeck will have a better chance of dodging rain drops then Hr balls. :lol:

marcshoe
02-05-2006, 09:38 AM
There was a note on the other board about reports of Weaver going to the Angels. I hope it's true.

traderumor
02-05-2006, 09:46 AM
I just have one thing to say about a team like the Reds getting Weaver

VALUE OVER REPLACEMENT PLAYER

MartyFan
02-05-2006, 09:50 AM
Yeeee---IKES!!!

Jaycint
02-05-2006, 12:52 PM
Let me preface this by saying that I don't think Weaver is a good fit here either. His propensity to give up the long ball scares me away. Other than his horrid stint with the Yankees however his numbers look pretty consistent even if they aren't spectacular. His numbers last year look very similar to Aaron Harang's numbers and career-wise they are similar as well in things such as K/9, K/BB ratio, Batting Average Against, OBP, SLG, and OPS.

I just find it funny that so many here laugh him off as if what we are gonna throw out there every day is superior. I agree he doesn't do enough above the norm to justify the money he would cost but let's not pretend like there's anything better already here.

RANDY IN INDY
02-05-2006, 01:39 PM
A one year deal at the right price would not be a bad thing for the Reds, but I would have to question Weaver's willingness to put his search for a long term contract in the confines of Great American Ballpark.

membengal
02-05-2006, 01:52 PM
If we are talking about Weaver vs. say, Paul Wilson, I would rather have Weaver.

Just sayin'.

max venable
02-05-2006, 01:54 PM
A one year deal at the right price would not be a bad thing for the Reds...
Especially if you can cash him in for some prospects at the trading deadline.

I don't think it would be a bad pickup at all. He's better than most of the guys in our rotation.

traderumor
02-05-2006, 03:03 PM
If we are talking about Weaver vs. say, Paul Wilson, I would rather have Weaver.

Just sayin'.That's like choosing between diarrhea and constipation.

deltachi8
02-05-2006, 03:05 PM
stay away...stay far away....

GAC
02-07-2006, 09:00 AM
That's like choosing between diarrhea and constipation.

At my age, those aren't choices, but givens. ;)

registerthis
02-07-2006, 10:31 AM
I don't see why the Reds would waste their time. In a different ballpark, Weaver can be an above-average hurler, but there's little doubt in my mind that Weaver and Milton would be in a dogfight of epic proportions to see who can cough up the most longballs on the team next season.

This is exactly the type of pitcher the Reds should be avoiding, regardless of the deal being offered. He's not the missing piece to a championship puzzle, he's not the long-awaited ace that would anchor our rotation, and he's not the verteran Maddux-esque leader who can guide our inexperienced but talent-laden rotation. Weaver would be nothing more than another Wilson, Milton, Ortiz, Hamilton, Haynes or Dessens--rotation filler that adds nothing to the team and provides no long-term benefit.

It befuddles me why the Reds consistently pursue players like this, knowing full well what the returns will be.

KronoRed
02-07-2006, 11:20 AM
The Reds go after the best they can, unfortunately it's all junk ballers, they should save their cash but they feel they owe it to the fans to try and sign people..even if they are junk.

traderumor
02-07-2006, 12:05 PM
I don't see why the Reds would waste their time. In a different ballpark, Weaver can be an above-average hurler, but there's little doubt in my mind that Weaver and Milton would be in a dogfight of epic proportions to see who can cough up the most longballs on the team next season.

This is exactly the type of pitcher the Reds should be avoiding, regardless of the deal being offered. He's not the missing piece to a championship puzzle, he's not the long-awaited ace that would anchor our rotation, and he's not the verteran Maddux-esque leader who can guide our inexperienced but talent-laden rotation. Weaver would be nothing more than another Wilson, Milton, Ortiz, Hamilton, Haynes or Dessens--rotation filler that adds nothing to the team and provides no long-term benefit.

It befuddles me why the Reds consistently pursue players like this, knowing full well what the returns will be.
Dysfunction.

RANDY IN INDY
02-07-2006, 12:37 PM
I've said this before, but the Reds really need to focus on getting a mix of pitchers that don't serve up the same offerings, day after day after day. So easy to lock in on a staff of pitchers that throw relatively the same speed with the same assortment of pitches.

The Reds have enough soft tossing hurlers. They need to focus in on drafting, developing, and signing some pitchers that can get the ball up to the plate in a hurry. Surround Eric Milton and Brandon Claussen with a couple of guys like that, and I think you might be surprised at how effective both might become, even in Great American Ballpark. There's nothing certain about it, but I think it is something that deserves thought.

Pitching is all about messing up the timing of hitters. From high 90's righthanded heat one night to a low 90's lefthander with a lot of breaking stuff the next afternoon and back to hard throwing the next night. Different arm angles. Different speeds. It makes a huge difference on the opposition, and from my own experience, makes it much tougher to hit. Makes those soft tossing lefties and righties become sneaky fast and much more effective.

I see too much "sameness" in the Reds pitchers, and I think it contributes to the lack of success. I'm not saying that all the pitchers on the Reds staff are good pitchers and would benefit, but I think a few would certainly be much more effective if the staff was not so much the same.

registerthis
02-07-2006, 12:45 PM
The Reds have enough soft tossing hurlers. They need to focus in on drafting, developing, and signing some pitchers that can get the ball up to the plate in a hurry. Surround Eric Milton and Brandon Claussen with a couple of guys like that, and I think you might be surprised at how effective both might become, even in Great American Ballpark. There's nothing certain about it, but I think it is something that deserves thought.

Milton's greatest liability is his inability to keep the ball in the park, a problem excaberated by his move to the GAB. I don't see where sorrounding him with an Oswalt and a Colon would cut down on that--when you get right down to it, Milton is an average-below average pitcher throwing in a park ill-suited to his style. There's a definitive limit as to how much you can gloss up that turd, and sorrounding him with Cy Young winners won't do it.

osuceltic
02-07-2006, 12:52 PM
I'm going to go against the grain and say Weaver would be a pretty good signing. Outside of his time in New York, the guy has been pretty darn solid and consistent over his career. He has stayed relatively healthy and is a good bet to start at least 30 games and pitch at least 200 innnings. His HR numbers last season are the exception, not the norm. He's 30 years old, in his prime. He's not Eric Milton.

You know what Jeff Weaver is? He's a solid, slightly above average major league pitcher. This staff is desperate for guys like that. If you could get him for three years, $7-8 mill a year, that's the going rate. ***** about it all you want, but that's the cost of doing business. If the Reds don't want to pay it, then keep shelling out for outfielders and catchers and throw batting practice arms out there all season long. That plan has worked well, right?

Will his numbers take a hit in GAB? Maybe a little. But GAB works both ways. The Reds score more runs there, too. Milton didn't suck because of the park last season. He just sucked.

Jeff Weaver? Sign me up.

registerthis
02-07-2006, 01:08 PM
You know what Jeff Weaver is? He's a solid, slightly above average major league pitcher. This staff is desperate for guys like that.

No, we're not, thank you. I don't want a "slightly above-average" starter who will eat up $8 mill per year. What will that gain the club? 78 wins instead of 75? Eat up money that could be used to sign Dunn?


Will his numbers take a hit in GAB? Maybe a little. But GAB works both ways. The Reds score more runs there, too. Milton didn't suck because of the park last season. He just sucked.

But it was predictable suckage. Perhaps not at the historical levels at which Milton performed last year, but a flyball pitcher pitching in a small park where the ball carries is a recipe for disaster. Weaver has pitched his entire career in pitcher-friendly environments, and still gave up 35 long balls last year. Even if he doesn't get worse (and there's nary a reason to think that the GAB wouldn't have at least SOME negative effect on his numbers), he and Milton will combine to be perhaps the most prolific HR pitchers baseball has ever seen. Why would a budget-conscious franchise with a depleted farm system and one of the worst staffs in the majors be interested in sinking $8 million of payroll into an average starter?

Guys like Harang and Claussen are the types of pitchers the Reds should be pursuing--young players who could be predicted to have a modicum of success with the Reds at the ML level. Weaver, he might be an OK acquisition of the Reds had a large market budget and a staff to complement it. In their current situation, he's not--no thanks.

osuceltic
02-07-2006, 01:25 PM
No, we're not, thank you. I don't want a "slightly above-average" starter who will eat up $8 mill per year. What will that gain the club? 78 wins instead of 75? Eat up money that could be used to sign Dunn?



But it was predictable suckage. Perhaps not at the historical levels at which Milton performed last year, but a flyball pitcher pitching in a small park where the ball carries is a recipe for disaster. Weaver has pitched his entire career in pitcher-friendly environments, and still gave up 35 long balls last year. Even if he doesn't get worse (and there's nary a reason to think that the GAB wouldn't have at least SOME negative effect on his numbers), he and Milton will combine to be perhaps the most prolific HR pitchers baseball has ever seen. Why would a budget-conscious franchise with a depleted farm system and one of the worst staffs in the majors be interested in sinking $8 million of payroll into an average starter?

Guys like Harang and Claussen are the types of pitchers the Reds should be pursuing--young players who could be predicted to have a modicum of success with the Reds at the ML level. Weaver, he might be an OK acquisition of the Reds had a large market budget and a staff to complement it. In their current situation, he's not--no thanks.

So you want the Reds to send out far below average pitchers, so long as they save money for Dunn? You think signing Dunn to a deal worth $12-15 mill a year for the next five or six years is a wise investment, but paying the going rate for pitching isn't? That's the thinking that has the Reds in this predicament. If they have a $70 million payroll, $40 million of that should be tied up in pitching. That's the kind of commitment they need to make. You can win scouring the bargain bins for position players, but not pitchers.

Harang ... He's a young Jeff Weaver. I love how Harang is developing. We can only hope Claussen is ever as successful as Jeff Weaver. You keep trolling for Harangs and Claussens and you end up with Harang and Claussen ... and Rob Bell, and Bubba Nelson, and Jung Bong, and Luke Hudson ... and how many more crap pitchers we hope will pan out?

At some point, you have to address the problem. Milton was a terrible signing. Terrible. That doesn't mean you never sign another established starting pitcher. It just means you sign a better one than Eric Milton. And Weaver is considerably better than Milton. Weaver, Harang ... those are two legitimate starting pitchers. Maybe Paul Wilson comes back and gives you another. Maybe Dave Williams does. Maybe Claussen. But with Weaver and Harang, you'd at least have two guys who aren't MAYBES.

Oh ... and if nothing else, guys like Weaver give you a valuable trading chip. If he has an ERA under 5 at the trading deadline, he'll have a list of teams looking to deal for him. You said yourself the Reds' farm system is bare. If nothing else, Weaver is an asset that can be used to help solve that problem.

registerthis
02-07-2006, 01:56 PM
So you want the Reds to send out far below average pitchers, so long as they save money for Dunn? You think signing Dunn to a deal worth $12-15 mill a year for the next five or six years is a wise investment, but paying the going rate for pitching isn't? That's the thinking that has the Reds in this predicament. If they have a $70 million payroll, $40 million of that should be tied up in pitching. That's the kind of commitment they need to make. You can win scouring the bargain bins for position players, but not pitchers.

I never said I wanted the Reds to sign "far below average pitchers." That's exactly what they've been doing. I said the Reds need to focus on signing and stockpiling young pitchers who could be predicted to be successful in Cincinnati. Harang and Claussen both fit that mold, and neither of them are "far below average" pitchers.

I also never said an investment in pitching isn't worthwhile--I said it should be invested wisely. Weaver is not a wise acquisition for this club--he doesn't bring nearly enough to the table to justify his salary. Dunn, in fact, does.


Harang ... He's a young Jeff Weaver. I love how Harang is developing. We can only hope Claussen is ever as successful as Jeff Weaver. You keep trolling for Harangs and Claussens and you end up with Harang and Claussen ... and Rob Bell, and Bubba Nelson, and Jung Bong, and Luke Hudson ... and how many more crap pitchers we hope will pan out?

That's why you invest heavily in scouting and farm system development. Of course you're going to get some crap along the way, but you'll also get some great returns as well. Teams like the Marlins and As built great pitching staffs through smart drafting and trades, not by throwing money at average hurlers who wouldn't do much to improve their club.

As far as Harang being a young Jeff Weaver, Harang is only a year younger than Weaver, and he outperformed him in virtually every category last year at a fraction of Weaver's price. Harang has better control, got more strikeouts, and gave up significantly fewer HRs than Weaver. Adjusted for park factors, Harang's numbers look even better.


At some point, you have to address the problem. Milton was a terrible signing. Terrible. That doesn't mean you never sign another established starting pitcher. It just means you sign a better one than Eric Milton. And Weaver is considerably better than Milton. Weaver, Harang ... those are two legitimate starting pitchers. Maybe Paul Wilson comes back and gives you another. Maybe Dave Williams does. Maybe Claussen. But with Weaver and Harang, you'd at least have two guys who aren't MAYBES.

And $8 million is far too much to put towards a "maybe". Yes, the Milton signing was terrible, but far too many people realized that in hindsight. What is it about Weaver's numbers that leads you to think that they will improve at GAB? Weaver is not a bad pitcher, but the Reds are not in a position to be throwing large sums of money at pitchers that are average and who provide no inclination that they will improve once they start playing here.


Oh ... and if nothing else, guys like Weaver give you a valuable trading chip. If he has an ERA under 5 at the trading deadline, he'll have a list of teams looking to deal for him. You said yourself the Reds' farm system is bare. If nothing else, Weaver is an asset that can be used to help solve that problem.

..and if he blows up and pulls a Milton, we won't be able to pay people to take him off our hands. Using him as trade fodder is the only way I would consider signing him, but an $8 million gamble is a large gamble to take, considering how well our previous gambles have paid off. I'm not inclined to take this one.

redsandrails
02-07-2006, 07:40 PM
I don't think that's a bad idea..... one year 8 million deal with a 9 or 10 million team option for 2007. If he does really well we have a good pitcher to lead our staff. If he messes up ohh well... try again next year and we can use that $ we spent on him on another pitcher like Mulder or Zito. If he does well and we are out of it then trade him for prospects. Either way it's not a terrible deal. He is better than Milton and has a better health record too.... I'm not saying a 3 year deal or even a 2 but a one year deal with an option. That would not be bad at all and it would help solidify our staff.

Bill
02-07-2006, 11:51 PM
Last I read, the Angels are his likely team to be.

TheBigLebowski
02-08-2006, 12:00 AM
I've said this before, but the Reds really need to focus on getting a mix of pitchers that don't serve up the same offerings, day after day after day. So easy to lock in on a staff of pitchers that throw relatively the same speed with the same assortment of pitches.

The Reds have enough soft tossing hurlers. They need to focus in on drafting, developing, and signing some pitchers that can get the ball up to the plate in a hurry. Surround Eric Milton and Brandon Claussen with a couple of guys like that, and I think you might be surprised at how effective both might become, even in Great American Ballpark. There's nothing certain about it, but I think it is something that deserves thought.

Pitching is all about messing up the timing of hitters. From high 90's righthanded heat one night to a low 90's lefthander with a lot of breaking stuff the next afternoon and back to hard throwing the next night. Different arm angles. Different speeds. It makes a huge difference on the opposition, and from my own experience, makes it much tougher to hit. Makes those soft tossing lefties and righties become sneaky fast and much more effective.

I see too much "sameness" in the Reds pitchers, and I think it contributes to the lack of success. I'm not saying that all the pitchers on the Reds staff are good pitchers and would benefit, but I think a few would certainly be much more effective if the staff was not so much the same.


Great post, from someone who obviously knows the game.

There's a reason why it is tough to hit a 83 MPH changeup after you just saw 2 94 MPH heaters.

When you've seen a steady diet of high-90's fastballs for 7 innings, it is tough to adjust to a lefty who throws a bunch of slow junk at you.

Hence, I nominate Tim Birtsas to follow Aaron Harang in the rotation.