Mr. Scioscia, you may be right about Jered not being a finished product. However, I think Jered is one of maybe 10 pitchers in baseball who has the potential to be a 10. I strongly believe that 90% of a 10 (a 9) is good enough to be in the starting rotation for the Angels.

Nice Post :)

When exactly does he become a finished product. He's not a finished product, but Santana is, despite being worse in every statistical category, and has been better at every level.

I'm not advocating Santana be sent down, Jeff has to go, but if choosing a young pitcher to send down it should have been Santana over Weaver, based on current starts and track record.

Speaking of pitching, Philip Hughes takes a no-hitter into the 8th inning before giving up a double. His final line... 8IP, 1H, 2BB, 10K, and a 3.18 ERA. His last 4 starts combined... 28IP, 13H, 8BB, 33K, 3ER, 2HR, and .96 ERA.

Oh, BTW, Happy 20th Birthday to the kid.

The only more idiotic thing the Angels could do this season would be to bring Bill Bavasi back into the fold.

I think you're buying the company line a little too easily. The real issue can be divined by these three questions:

1) Does having Jered in the MLB rotation (instead of Jeff) make the Angels into a playoff-caliber team?

Answer: Probably not. They're seven games under .500, in last place in a decent AL West (7 games off the lead). They're 15 games out of the wild card. Basically, he's too little too late. Also, note that he's missing about 9 weeks -- assumedly, he'll be back in the bigs come 9/1 -- or about 12 starts.

2) Does having Jered in the minors in 2006 have a negative effect on the 2007 Angels?

Answer: Maybe, but it'd be very little. Jered will be in the bigs for sure then (otherwise, someone needs to be fired) and there's little reason to think his development will be stunted by completing this year in AAA (w/the occasional callup) as opposted to in Anaheim.

3) Does DFAing a player and/or putting Jeff in the pen hurt the team, both now and in the future?

Answer: Yes. No doubt. Jeff has some trade value now, even if it's for a low-level prospect in what is basically a salary dump. It makes a lot of sense for the Angels to not further degrade his value and/or the value of another potential trade chip. Similarly, it makes little sense for them to DFA a player.

The issue has very little to do with how good Jered is. It has to do with the above factors. The Angels aren't very good right now. Jered won't fix that. They're looking toward 2007, and it makes a ton more sense to try and move a player than simply let one go. Moving Jered to AAA allows them to do that without devaluing their current assets.

This irrational love for Jered is getting old pretty quickly.

I agree with DNL; yes, Weaver is a very good pitcher and is performing well but it's not necessarily in the team's best interest to bring him up right now.
From an Angels fans' perspective, I can certainly see why they would rather see Jered pitch every fifth day right now. He's talented and an exciting guy to watch. However, bringing him up now does not suddenly turn the last-place Angels into a first-place team and it might hurt the team in the long run (2007-2012).

I'm also not convinced Jered has nothing to learn in the PCL. I mean, he surrendered 11 hits over 5 innings just last week. He's not perfect.

"it's not necessarily in the team's best interest to bring him up right now."

Huh? He went 4-0. How is winning not the best interest of the team?

"This irrational love for Jered is getting old pretty quickly."

Nice strawman. There is nothing remotely irrational or even emotional about Rich's analysis on Jered Weaver. Weaver's been very good and pretty clearly an MLB caliber turn-taker and Rich has evidenced his modest contentions every step of the way....

The irony of your statement of course is that projections for Weaver that might have been considered "irrational" a year or two ago may prove to be the most rational of all. But Rich reined himself in...probably because he didn't feel inclined to listen to crap like this.

Funny thing is, if Rich said what he truly felt all along, he probably would have been more right than anybody on Weaver. But who needs the "fanboy" and "irrational love" acusations?

Yeah, it stinks that Jered was sent down - but since he can't produce runs, and sooner or later all those fly balls he was giving up were gonna turn into hits, so it won't hurt him to spend a little more time in AAA.
And for those people comparing him to Santana, last time I checked, Irvin was 7-2 - the most wins on the Angels this year.

And Jered has 4 and only pitched for a month, not almost 4 like Magic has. Also, wins are irrelavant when evaluating how good a pitcher has been, they're totally dependent on run support. You could give up 14 runs and still get a win, you could give up one in 9 innings and lose.

Excuse me ImJudyB.
1) "All those fly balls he was giving up were gonna turn into hits."
Are you serious?... C'mon guys lets send him down, I know his ERA is 1.37 but it really isn't that good because he is giving up a lot of fly balls. Last time I checked there is nothing wrong with a fly ball, as long as it is an out. And apparently those fly balls didn't turn into hits last night.
2) "And for those people comparing him to Santana, last time I checked, Irvin was 7-2 - the most wins on the Angels this year."
I have nothing against Santana, I think he is a great pitcher and will only get better. But first of all Ervin is not 7-2, he is 8-3 (15 starts) with an ERA of 4.03. Jered is 4-0 (4 starts) with an ERA of 1.37. You are criticizing people who are comparing Jered to Ervin??? Tell me again why that is an unfair comparison. If anything it is unfair to Jered to speak of Ervin on Jered's level!

I would guess that this is mostly about his service time clock.

Although Jered is probably going to be a good pitcher in the league, he was rather lucky in his first time up - his HR/Flyball rate and BABIP was significantly below where they should have been, regardless of whether he's the next Pedro or not, so he was due for a serious regression to the mean. While its the gambler's fallacy to assume that he necessarily would have had a bad start to correspond with his other ones, chances are he would've... and would not have saved the Angel's season.

When did this site become exclusively devoted to Jered Weaver? It's weird. There was an article on here with a writer defending his opinion against another writer that Jered Weaver would not be that good, and ever since then it's been like someone's overcompensating for not being glowing enough in their reviews.

Yeesh. Enough about Jered Weaver. Next subject please.

Jered just hasn't yet learned to throw enough ground balls. Two hits and fourteen strikeouts in his last Triple A outing are proof. Somebody send him a copy of "Bull Durham" to watch . . . He needs to heed the words of Crash Davis:

"Relax, all right? Don't try to strike everybody out. Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic."

When did this site become exclusively devoted to Jered Weaver?

OK, it's my time for a mini rant.

First of all, this site is NOT "exclusively devoted to Jered Weaver." Outside of the quick blog type post on Friday night, only one of the last ten articles has featured Weaver.

Secondly, we will write about what we want to write about it. If it interests you, great. If not, don't read it. But we don't owe you or anyone else a certain number of articles or subject types.

Thirdly, you have your facts mixed up. There is no need for me to "overcompensate for not being glowing enough in (my) reviews" of Weaver as I have been steadfast in my resolve all along that he is an outstanding pitcher. On the other hand, the writer you are referring to is of the opinion that Jered's upside, if realized, is no better than Jeff's.

I have been covering Jered Weaver since January 2004, and I plan to continue writing about him. As the estimable Bill James wrote in the 1988 Baseball Abstract:

People have started assuming that I am a goddamn public utility or something. I get letters from people telling me that I do this well but that I shouldn't do that and I should do more of that and less of this and try some of the other. If they irritate me enough, I write back "Dear Jackass: I am not your employee. It is not my function to write about what you are interested in. I write about what I am interested in. If you want to read it, read it. If you don't, don't. But DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO WRITE ABOUT."

Grover - That is good. Really good. And so fitting!

Nice strawman. There is nothing remotely irrational or even emotional about Rich's analysis on Jered Weaver. Weaver's been very good and pretty clearly an MLB caliber turn-taker and Rich has evidenced his modest contentions every step of the way....

What is irrational, in my opinion, is the insistence that Mike Scioscia doesn't know what he's talking about or the Angels must be "idiotic" to keep Jered in Salt Lake City. Just because a pitcher is performing well doesn't mean the pitcher don't have anything to learn in triple-A or that it's a good idea to start up their service clock.

Yeesh. Enough about Jered Weaver. Next subject please.

Yeah!! What are we paying you losers for anyway?!

What's that? This site is free you say? Well then, carry on.

Although, in all fairness, he did say please.

I understand the hype over Jered Weaver...Stud through college, earned promotions through the system...4 and 0...all great stuff. Two words
"Aaron Small" I know the difference being Weaver is a cant miss prospect and Small was a guy living in the minors for awhile. Im just saying 4-0 means nothing for someone just starting out...He still needs that time to develop. I mean he still doesnt have that much professional experience!