Wednesday, February 15, 2006 |
Angels Sign Jeff Weaver
Update: now confirmed in the Times.
"We discussed some two-year proposals, but we felt a one-year situation would be good," [agent Scott] Boras said. "Jeff's still a young pitcher, and he certainly wants a multi-year contract. He had offers for more money, and a multi-year offer, be he decided to take one year and to review the situation at the end of the year."Jon's already on top of this, observing that the Dodgers have committed similar money to Brett Tomko (albeit for more years) and guess who's the better pitcher? The mitigating factor, of course, is that the Dodgers couldn't hold on long enough to get a deal done; as Jon correctly observes, this is a problem with the current free agency setup. He also points out that the Angels must surrender a draft pick for Weaver because the Dodgers offered him salary arbitration....
Weaver, who could make about $9 million with incentives, signed for far less than what he was originally seeking, a four-year deal in the $45-million range. But once talks with the Dodgers broke off on Jan. 8, Weaver's market shrunk.
Weaver had declined an arbitration offer with the Dodgers in December. He told the team he'd sign a three-year, $27-million deal with an option, but the Dodgers never made a firm offer.
"It's very simple," Boras said, "the Dodgers said they were interested in bringing Jeff back, but in the end, they never made a proposal. I think all of the teams in baseball thought he would be with the Dodgers. Once they [pulled out] a lot of teams had already made some decisions. Jeff wanted to go to the right place. He wanted to go to a winning team."
Update 2: Now in via AP via ESPN, who tags the figures at $8.325M and $600,000 worth of possible bonuses.
Update 3: Also on MLB.com.
: 2/15/2006 12:34:00 PM : 2/15/2006 01:47:00 PMIf Howie Kendrick continues to knock the cover off the ball, it will also be difficult to keep him down in favor of Adam Kennedy.
In other words, the Angels should be able to generate enough offense; the question is whether they want to.
: 2/15/2006 04:15:00 PMI'd say there are offensive question marks at C, 1B, 2B, SS, CF, and LF. (LF because of Anderson's arthritis/back/knee injuries.) That's six of nine spots in the lineup.
The Angels have a decent leadoff hitter, a great hitter batting third, and will probably have a decent hitter batting fifth or sixth (the McPherson/Rivera/Quinlan DH).
Of course, if Anderson makes a comeback and if Kotchman's for real, that will make a big difference. Otherwise, PECOTA may be right about the Angels being at the bottom of the league in runs scored.
: 2/15/2006 05:04:00 PM
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.