St. Louis Cardinals: On keeping or dealing Luke Weaver

The St. Louis Cardinals have so many decisions to make this winter, and one is very clearly to evaluate what their starting pitching will look like.  As part of this process, they will examine the future of  bright young starter, Luke Weaver, and whether his true value to the club is as a rotation member or a trade chip.

If the team retains Luke Weaver, he will be entering his third year with the St. Louis Cardinals.  Weaver showed a marked progression from his first showing in 2016 to his more substantial one in 2017.  Despite only starting two more games this season than the previous one, he almost doubled his innings and lowered his ERA by almost two runs per game.

Notwithstanding a couple of blowups in his last two starts which raised his ERA from the low 2s to the high 3s, the Cards were notably impressed by the overall performance of the young Weaver.  Many pundits believe he will join Carlos Martinez, Michael Wacha and possibly Adam Wainwright as part of the rotation if he remains here.

But should he? Our contributors Dan Campbell and Larry Levin have different perspectives about where Weaver’s value best lies, and about his upside potential as a starter. Dan makes the argument for maximizing Weaver’s potential worth to other clubs by including him in a trade package if it gets something more valuable for the team’s 2018 success.

Larry, on the other hand, thinks that the Cardinals would do well to secure Weaver as part of the upcoming season’s climb back to the playoffs.  After reading their dialogue, feel free to weigh in on your views about Weaver’s true value.

LARRY: Dan, you and I have some different views about how the St. Louis Cardinals should maximize Luke Weaver’s talent.  Why don’t we start with your take on who Weaver is as a pitcher — what do you think of his performance to date, where is he in his growth curve, and how does he compare to other pitchers you’ve seen in a Cardinals uniform over the years?

DAN:  Thanks, Larry.  Will the real Luke Weaver please stand up?  We are gonna have a problem here.  Larry acts like he’s never seen this pitcher before, but the St. Louis Cardinals had a dynamic young pitcher just like Luke Weaver.

Larry and Dan debate the value of St. Louis Cardinals young arm, Luke Weaver.

LARRY: Dan, one of the great things about prospects and early-career major leaguers is our ability to fairly debate who they are and who they’ll become.  So your comparison of Weaver to Shelby Miller is a great place to start, even if I find it somewhat misplaced.

First, the players joined professional baseball at very different ages, almost four years apart.  The year Miller joined the big league club he was already in his third year of throwing over 100 innings at the professional level.

Despite his great college prowess, Weaver still hasn’t gotten to that point. So as Dan notes, his pro growth curve is still exceptionally fresh, making his prediction curve something far from certain.

Second, the only expectations that Miller really left short for the Cardinals was whether he would or could be an ace, not whether he could be an effective mid-rotation major league pitcher.

Despite the reduced strikeout totals in 2014, there was nothing wrong with his overall performance; it was essentially major-league average. His FIP had risen, to be sure, but there was no indication he couldn’t once again demonstrate the very dominant pitching he flashed in 2013.

And remember, Dan, the primary reason he was dealt was because of the tragic death of Oscar Taveras. That hole left the Cardinals shocked and in a quandary about how to fill out their everyday lineup in 2015.

The move for Heyward was a necessity, and it was only by surrendering the then-prized Miller that they landed both one year of Heyward and the seemingly capable Walden, whose mysterious arm ailment cut his career short to the Cards’ great disappointment.

It must also be noted that Miller, despite his bizarre 6-17 record in 2015, was a National League All-Star, and he actually recovered his strikeout touch to some degree.

Though certainly not at the K-per-inning clip of 2013, Miller had 44 more strikeouts in his first year with the Braves than in his last year with the Cards, in only 22 more innings. Interestingly, his hits per nine innings never varied from 2013-2015: It was either 7.9 or 8.0 each of the three years.

But even before his swoon-plus-injuries in these last two Arizona years, Miller never accomplished what Weaver has done in his combined minor and major league career, which is to blend extremely high strikeout rates with low walk totals.

Despite superficial similarities in their pitches, Weaver’s K/BB ratio is one that all but the most accomplished major leaguers never realize.

The worst result in this category for Weaver in the minors was 3.0, and most of his years have been in the high 3s or 4s. By contrast, Miller’s major-league K/BB is a rather pedestrian 2.2. To be fair, some of that derived from the last two ugly seasons, but he’s never topped 3.0.

Guess who else has never topped 3.0? Ok, 3.06, to be exact? Carlos Martinez. Michael Wacha achieved a 3.42 in his first season of 2013, but has never topped 3.0 again.

What does this all mean? A few things. Since his inning totals are still growing, there’s no need for Weaver to try to change to a contact guy yet. He’s not yet tested whether he can grow his innings while maintaining one of the best K/BB ratios in the majors.

At his 4.03 ratio over the last two partial seasons, guess where he stands among active pitchers? Behind Chris Sale, Corey Kluber, Steven Strasburg, Madison Bumgarner, and Clayton Kershaw, and right above Max Scherzer.

Now, no one here is claiming he’ll be those guys, but given his power and command, he COULD be. Miller even with his strikeout prowess didn’t have that combo.

And that, Dan, is why he’s different than Shelby, and the main reason why I wouldn’t trade him now. But before I get to that, let’s get back to your view on including Luke in a trade…

Larry and Dan debate the value of St. Louis Cardinals young arm, Luke Weaver.

Larry: …which kinds of transactions would be right in which to include him. Thoughts?

DAN: Larry, you make some great points.  Let me start by offering some rebuttal.  First, the incredible K/BB ratio is skewed by a small sample size.  I would like to see what Weaver does over a full season.

Indeed, as you must concede, Weaver’s 18 starts over two partial major league seasons is little more than a half season by way of sample size – a sample size that many would argue tells a tale of two pitchers.

If Weaver, who is no longer a surprise to opposing hitters but more of a known quantity, can replicate his K/BB success, then I agree his ceiling is much higher than I currently expect.  Just like it’s premature to elevate or criticize Weaver based on the small sample size, it is unfair to criticize Miller for injury-riddled campaigns in which he put up ghastly numbers.

Indeed, I understand perfectly why the young stud Shelby Miller had to be included to land Heyward.  I also think the St. Louis Cardinals find themselves in a similar position now, where a young starter (or two) will have to be included in a deal to land a superstar.

You asked about which deal the St. Louis Cardinals might want to include Weaver in to net a large return.  Let me first say that the St. Louis Cardinals do not need to, and thus should not, include Luke Weaver in any deal involving Giancarlo Stanton.

As we have discussed on the podcast numerous times, the Marlins simply do not have enough leverage to get that much talent in a trade if they are really motivated to dump the remaining $295M on Stanton’s contract.  Alas, I digress.

There are only two-to-three superstars for whom I would trade Luke Weaver.  Don’t get me wrong, I too think he has a high ceiling – I just think he ends up looking a lot like Shelby Miller once he endures the grind of a full 30-35 start season.  We shall see.

But, the three trades in which I would include Luke Weaver as a centerpiece are:  (1) Manny Machado; (2) Chris Archer; and (3) Josh Donaldson AND Marcus Stroman.  I want to take these one at a time here.

First, Machado.  I understand that the Orioles swear he is not available.  But, if the Orioles are bluffing, or if the team struggles out of the gate and Machado refuses to negotiate an extension, then he will be available.  The St. Louis Cardinals could build a package around Luke Weaver, Jack Flaherty, Harrison Bader/Magneuris Sierra and Delvin Perez.

This deal would have to be conditioned on signing Machado to an extension for him to remain in St. Louis long-term.

The Orioles would have a really hard time turning this deal down.  You get several top-100 prospects and all with lots of team control left.  I understand that this deal is unlikely, but the deal in which I would trade Luke Weaver must net a large return or I would prefer to keep him.

Second, Chris Archer (and possibly Alex Colome depending on deal structure).  I do not think the Rays will deal Archer, but if they do, he is a current ace and one of the best pitchers in baseball.  He is also signed to one of the most team-friendly deals in the game.

The deal for Archer could include Weaver, Dakota Hudson, and Carson Kelly.  The Rays would find this deal very attractive because they get a two major-league ready starters and a major-league ready catcher who has worked with those starters.  This is a deal the St. Louis Cardinals could make in addition to adding Giancarlo Stanton.  Can you imagine that?

Finally, Josh Donaldson AND Marcus Stroman.  Marcus Stroman reminds me a lot of de facto team ace Carlos Martinez.  Better still, Stroman is under team control through the end of the 2020 season.  Donaldson is only under team control for one year, but with Stroman in this deal I am perfectly fine with the Cardinals doing this deal without extending Donaldson.

The deal for these players would be very similar to the deal for Archer and Colome mentioned above, although you may have to include another pitcher such as a Sandy Alcantara or Jack Flaherty to sweeten the pot and get both stars.

I would much rather keep Weaver if he is not involved in a deal to bring home a superstar.  But, his value is at its peak right now.  He WILL regress this next season from his stellar run and the hype surrounding him based on last year’s partial success.  I say sell high if you can swing one of these deals.  Et tus, Larry?  What say you?

Larry and Dan debate the value of St. Louis Cardinals young arm, Luke Weaver.

LARRY: Dan, thanks for recognizing Weaver’s enormous upside potential. Of course I agree that it’s way too soon to know if Luke’s small major-league sample size portends an exceptional career.  We do know that his minor-league stats teased who he’d be and his early efforts in St. Louis back that up.

But yes, I think there is a reasonable chance that his upside exceeds that of the very fine work Shelby Miller was able to turn in prior to his injuries the past two years.

So that leads to the question of whether there are trades in which I’d include him if I were John Mozeliak or Mike Girsch. So let me go through the deals you speculate about and then address whether there are any others I’d recommend.

I am not going to even speculate about Manny Machado. If there’s any chance at all that he’s dealt in this, his walk year, I believe it will happen at the July trade deadline, to a contender. So I don’t see this as a reasonable possibility (and watch me get that wrong!).

Chris Archer? Nah. He’s a great pitcher and any MLB team would be happy to have him. But would I surrender Weaver-plus and his upside, good for another six years of control, for a $33M, four-year commitment?

I might if I didn’t have a Carlos Martinez and an Alex Reyes coming up right behind him. But right now, I’m comfy enough with the impressive pitching talent of the Cardinals to not go dealing for a multi-million dollar pitcher.

Is Archer a bargain in the context of free agent starters? Of course. But that’s not enough for me, given the talent we already possess on the mound.

And while Colome might be a nice add as a powerful bullpen arm, by no means am I surrendering Weaver, another power arm in Hudson AND one of the best catcher prospects in the majors, Carson Kelly, for the Tampa pair. If the Cards want a closer, there are options out there to plain old buy one in the free agent market with no prospect relinquishment.

More from St Louis Cardinals News

• Cardinals Rumors: 3 pros and cons of signing Carlos Rodon
• Cardinals: Here is Willson Contreras’ first message for St. Louis fans
• How do the St. Louis Cardinals stack up with Willson Contreras?
• Cardinals: The insane asking price the Athletics had for Sean Murphy
• St. Louis Cardinals: Ask me anything with Josh Jacobs – 12/8

Which brings me to Donaldson and Stroman. This is the closest call, and given Stroman is a proven, established version of Weaver at three years of cheap control, I’d at least consider a deal. But I don’t think that the Cards would include the package you suggest, and neither would I. If St. Louis goes free agent for a closer, then it’s my belief that we trade for a hitter than can benefit the team more than a year.

Why do I say that? Because while a Donaldson type will always make your team better, the Cards are in the process of building a team that can be competitive for multiple years. There’s no Donaldson that I know of in the Cards organization, so we’d likely be back at square one after 2018 looking for another bopper. That’s why the Stanton/Yellich/Ozuna type options are more appealing to me.

While I’m not sure I agree with you on whether good prospects will be required for a Stanton deal, I don’t think Weaver needs to be part of it. There are others, like the ones you’ve mentioned — Hudson, Alcantara etc (but apparently not Jordan Hicks, who the team seems unwilling to part with) — who could fill the bill.

It’s not that I think Weaver is some sort of baseball god, far from it. It’s just that the logic of the moment doesn’t require dealing a guy who holds the promise of slotting into the top three slots in the Cards’ rotation for a half dozen years to come. And that’s not an asset I trade lightly.

That’s all I got, Dan. Any final words before we sign out?

DAN: Larry, excellent insight as usual.  One thing to add, as we conclude this debate, is that the type of conversation that Larry and I just engaged in is exactly what the St. Louis Cardinals are doing internally.  Whether we like it or not, Luke Weaver IS available to other teams in the right deal.

There is no untouchable (other than Yadier Molina) on this roster.  Thus, while some may take issue with our polite discourse as speculative, debating players and their fits with this team or in trades is precisely the type of conversation that the St. Louis Cardinals must have to transform this roster.

Lastly, the one thing Larry and I clearly agree on is that Luke Weaver is incredibly valuable.  My main point continues to be that the extreme value we see in Luke Weaver is redundant in the face of an Alex Reyes, Sandy Alcantara and Jordan Hicks, and Luke Weaver is more valuable to other teams in need of young pitching as a result.

I only hope that the front office values Luke as highly as Larry and I do – otherwise, a trade partner will steal an incredible talent from the St. Louis Cardinals.

Next: Blockbuster deal from Seattle

Editor’s conclusion: These two guys are just two of our great writing squad. If you’d like to join a team of energetic, funny, dedicated, and intelligent minds focused on the St. Louis Cardinals, be sure to click the link above and come share your thoughts with us.