Jeff Weaver to Mariners, 1 year/$8.324 Million!!??!!???!!!

by jdudas on Jan 26, 2007 10:27 PM EST

This here is just absurd. It was clear after the Vidro and Soriano fiascos that no more proof was needed as to Bill Bavasi's descent to the lowest rung of competence; but just in case anyone wasn't yet convinced, he just paid potentially $9 million (with incentives) to a guy who has posted a WHIP under 1.2 exactly twice over an eight-year career. While I do hate the Mariners, it is truly getting brutal for their fan base.

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Re: Jeff Weaver to Mariners, 1 year/$8.324 Million

Seems pretty reasonable to me. I mean, not for the M's, who are burning almost $9M to get a couple extra wins for their last place team, but the contract itself seems pretty reasonable in this market for an innings eater and back-of-the-rotation type.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Jan 26, 2007 10:48 PM EST reply actions

Re: Jeff Weaver to Mariners, 1 year/$8.324 Million

Weaver's not so bad. He just doesn't do well in the early part of the season. He usually comes around after, oh, 20 to 25 starts.

by Jay on Jan 27, 2007 12:24 AM EST reply actions

Re: Jeff Weaver to Mariners, 1 year/$8.324 Million

That should mesh nicely with when Vidro carries them to the playoffs.

Wait 'til next year... or something like that

by Brad D on Jan 27, 2007 12:50 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Jeff Weaver to Mariners, 1 year/$8.324 Million

So they pay him an extra million over Byrd for a guy who has a pretty decent ceiling? I don't see the fuss. Ofcourse, everyone knows I would have went after another unnamed, already signed pitcher...

Governor's Cup in '07!

by Brandini on Jan 27, 2007 3:07 AM EST reply actions

Re: Jeff Weaver to Mariners, 1 year/$8.324 Million

Yeah, I guess I'm in the minority on this. But this just strikes me as unreasonable for a guy who might be an ok 5th starter. Moreover, Byrd (when healthy) has been consistently better than Weaver over the course of his career; so I don't really see the comparison.

Railing against the sacrifice bunt since 2000.

by jdudas on Jan 27, 2007 7:12 AM EST reply actions

Re: Jeff Weaver to Mariners, 1 year/$8.324 Million

4.60 NRA v. 4.54 NRA.
Do you take the 36 year who has had Tommy John surgery or the 30 year old who just won a world series and was a vital part of a rotation that more then held its own?

For me I take the pitcher 6 years younger who for his career, has only been marginally worse - inflated mostly by two awful seasons.

Governor's Cup in '07!

by Brandini on Jan 27, 2007 9:38 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Jeff Weaver to Mariners, 1 year/$8.324 Million

I'm not sure what Weaver's value is today, but I remember the first time I saw him pitch at the Jake. Jaret Wright gave up a two-run double to Dean Palmer, then beaned Tony Clark, obviously intentionally. In the bottom of the inning, everyone knew Manny Ramirez would be the payback victim. Weaver drilled him in the helmet, casually caught the ball backhanded when it caromed off Manny's helmet, then slouched back toward the mound. When Manny recovered sufficiently to charge the mound, Weaver rapidly retreated toward shortstop.The only serious casualty of the whole affair was Clark, who suffered a real head injury. I appreciated Weaver as a young guy willing to come inside, even extremely so, and smart enough to avoid the onrushing enraged Manny.

by Rochester on Jan 27, 2007 12:48 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Jeff Weaver to Mariners, 1 year/$8.324 Million

was a vital part of a rotation that more then held its own

Geez, the guy's numbers suck, so you start writing him a poem. This sentence means absolutely nothing. Nobody is debating Weaver's health, but his ERA+ for the past four seasons is around 88. That's almost 800 innings of blech.

Byrd's surgery was four years ago. He came back in late June of 2004, started 16 games that season, 31 games in 2005 and another 31 in 2006. And among 50 ERA qualifiers since July of 2004, he's 19th in ERA. His age is cause for concern, but he fits the profile of the guy who comes back from Tommy John 18 months later, and eventually stronger than before.

by Jay on Jan 27, 2007 2:34 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Jeff Weaver to Mariners, 1 year/$8.324 Million

"Geez, the guy's numbers suck, so you start writing him a poem."
And Paul Byrd was all of WHAT in 2006? Any defence of Byrd and his signing is completely laughable! What did this organization think they were going to get???

That said, I take the guy who has struggled recently, but is still in the midst of his prime over a guy who didn't get a full time job until he was 29, mixxed in with serious surgery and was a year or two out of his prime...

But thats just me...The one who was bashed for using batting average.
Question, ERA?!? Seriously, you are now using ERA?

Again, you don't sign a free agent completely based on what he HAS done, rather you try to guess at what he WILL do. My GUESS is that a 30 year old is likely to have a better season then a 36 year old.

Governor's Cup in '07!

by Brandini on Jan 28, 2007 3:14 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Jeff Weaver to Mariners, 1 year/$8.324 Million

Neither Byrd of Weaver should be counted on for much as both have proven they are not consistent or reliable in any way. Given that Weaver still has a higher ceiling and is younger with out the injury history. Weaver can be a head case and Bryd can be a good club house guy but in this case I would rather have Weaver because he has more potential and now has a world series ring something that is valuable in itself.

Swing and a big miss

by 5tribetipies on Jan 28, 2007 3:37 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Jeff Weaver to Mariners, 1 year/$8.324 Million

I can defend the Byrd signing purely on the basis that I am not a child.

Every signing is based on a range of possibilities, and Byrd's signing was a solid move on that basis. Nothing about his later performance can change that -- nothing. We haven't learned anything new that it was possible to know a year ago, when the decision was made, so our opinion of the decision itself should not change.

Unless, of course, "we" are children.

(By the way, ERA has its problems, but it's more relevant than batting average, and ERA alternatives are not as easy to come by and utilize as batting average alternatives. Besides, I'm using ERA+, and I'm only using it to compare samples of 500-plus innings, both of which greatly reduce whatever shortcomings it has.)

Weaver is not a guy who is "in the midst of his prime" but has just "struggled recently." (That actually sounds a lot more like Thomson.) Weaver has been in a full-on sucky-to-average stretch for four years now -- and he was only decent-to-good for three years before that. So, he's had more lame seasons than decent ones, and the lame ones were all more recent. Are we really going to disagree about projecting this guy?

Weaver's three-month flirtation with "kind of good" was five years ago, and it now looks exactly like a slightly early peak or just a slighly flukey performance. At the time, Weaver was young enough that he was expected to sustain and improve from that level -- he wasn't just "kind of good," he was "promising." But as it turned out, that that was his peak.

The argument for Byrd is just this: His 2005 season was better than any of Weaver's last five seasons -- significantly better, in fact. And his 2004 season was basically the same, once he returned from rehab. So what we're asking is, which is more likely: Byrd (age 36) returns to his form from 1-2 years ago, or Weaver (age 30) returns to his form form 4-5 years ago? And the answer is: If I have to talk about this one more minute, I'm gonna barf.

by Jay on Jan 28, 2007 7:07 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Jeff Weaver to Mariners, 1 year/$8.324 Million

Do you take the 36 year who has had Tommy John surgery or the 30 year old who just won a world series and was a vital part of a rotation that more then held its own?

Given that Weaver prefaced his clutch postseason performance by sucking the entire 2006 season, I'd be more inclined to believe the sucking than the clutchness.

by Ryan on Jan 27, 2007 5:36 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Jeff Weaver to Mariners, 1 year/$8.324 Million

Well said, gentlemen.

Railing against the sacrifice bunt since 2000.

by jdudas on Jan 28, 2007 7:08 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Jeff Weaver to Mariners, 1 year/$8.324 Million

Or maybe playing in "baseball towns" (NewYork, Los Angeles, St Louis) have had a negative effect on him. Look at the way he pitched in Detroit.

Governor's Cup in '07!

by Brandini on Jan 28, 2007 3:06 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Jeff Weaver to Mariners, 1 year/$8.324 Million

Then maybe he shouldn't be such a [enter derogatory remark here]. God if that was his excuse, maybe he should think about switching careers.

by hans on Jan 28, 2007 11:04 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Jeff Weaver to Mariners, 1 year/$8.324 Million

I too am surprised he didn't parlay his postseason into a bigger deal. I don't think it's a terrible signing. We'll see how it plays out.

by JulioBernazard on Jan 28, 2007 11:04 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Jeff Weaver to Mariners

My sense is that he preferred a "front-loaded" one-year deal, because he wasn't going to get more than $20 million or so as a three-year deal. If he can put up solid-average numbers this season, he's going to get $30 million plus next year ... for a four-year total of $40 million.

by Jay on Jan 28, 2007 12:02 PM EST up reply actions