Skip to content

Jered Weaver loses his arbitration case

Feb 10, 2011, 12:35 PM EDT

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim v Texas Rangers Getty Images

The Angels had no problem taking on Vernon Wells‘ $81 million deal, but dadgummit they fought Jered Weaver over less than $1.5 million.  In arbitration, that is.  An arbitration that was held yesterday. Which the Angels have won, reports MLBTR.

Weaver wanted $8.8 million.  The Angels offered him $7.365 million, which seems at least two places past the decimal point too specific, but who cares?

Weaver is 28 and he’s the clear ace of the Angels’ staff.  He had a 3.01 ERA and 1.07 WHIP in 34 starts last season, with 233 strikeouts and only 54 walks in 224.1 innings.  He also only went eight innings or longer in only three games, which means that if he played for the Twins they’d be looking to trade him for Michael Young or something. At least that’s what the Star Tribune tells me.

  1. yankeesfanlen - Feb 10, 2011 at 12:38 PM

    Must have something to do with being Jeff’s brother.

  2. uyf1950 - Feb 10, 2011 at 12:39 PM

    If I were a betting man I would say that’s not going to leave a good taste in Weaver/Boras mouth. It certainly no going to want to give the Angels the benefit of the doubt in a long term contract negotiation. You can probably count of Weaver hitting the free agency market come the 2013 season.

    • uyf1950 - Feb 10, 2011 at 12:46 PM

      Sorry, but I’m going to try that post again. Hopefully this time without all of the mistakes.

      If I were a betting man I would say that’s not going to leave a good taste in Weaver/Boras mouth. They are certainly not going to want to give the Angels the benefit of the doubt in any long term contract negotiation. You can probably count of Weaver hitting the free agency market come the 2013 season.

    • Joe - Feb 10, 2011 at 1:48 PM

      You could have stopped at “Boras” and come to the same conclusion. 8^)

      • spudchukar - Feb 10, 2011 at 2:30 PM

        Yeah UYF, I think this falls into the win the battle, lose the war category.

  3. dodger88 - Feb 10, 2011 at 1:00 PM

    I know it’s an apples and oranges debate but there is something wrong when Jered Weaver loses his arbitration case while Ross Ohlendorf wins his.

    • uyf1950 - Feb 10, 2011 at 1:09 PM

      Like the article says. The bigger issue is the Angels were willing to take on Wells contract but they hassle Weaver over a less then $1.5M Doesn’t make any sense, especially if you are looking at signing the guy long term in the near future. As the saying goes I think the Angels were being “penny wise and pound foolish” in this case.

  4. Utley's Hair - Feb 10, 2011 at 1:04 PM

    Dadgummit? Aces and Chooch must be close, ’cause Craig’s already channeling Cholly!!!!!!!

  5. BC - Feb 10, 2011 at 1:05 PM

    Ohlendorf wins and Weaver loses? I’m totally confused.

  6. Mike Luna - Feb 10, 2011 at 2:29 PM

    This makes no sense.

    Shame on you, Angels.

  7. uyf1950 - Feb 10, 2011 at 5:29 PM

    I still cant see how Weaver lost his case. An All Star and 5th in the 2010 CY vote on top of an excellent ERA and bb to so ratio. Just can’t understand it.

  8. saltwatertrout - Feb 11, 2011 at 9:54 AM

    For those of you confused by the decision and why the Halos would go to arbitration over this, I think this article will clear things up a bit (it did for me)

    http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/weaver_to_lincecum_or_not_to_lincecum_that_is_the_arbitrators_question/

    The Angels’ offer was right in line with the comparables to Weaver, and the arbitrators agreed. Furthermore, it’ll set the baseline in terms of dollars for a longterm extension.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Do the Angels have any weaknesses?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Stanton (3660)
  2. A. Rizzo (2464)
  3. R. Castillo (2325)
  4. B. Belt (2152)
  5. A. Pujols (2029)
  1. H. Ryu (1996)
  2. C. Young (1984)
  3. J. Hamilton (1908)
  4. C. Davis (1809)
  5. E. Gattis (1776)