Sammon: Teams To "Aggressively Pursue" Luke Weaver

[Matthew Lenz]

The New York Mets are in the midst of another disappointing season, yet may not have many pieces to truly "sell" at the trade deadline. Since they'll look to compete in 2027, they likely won't move any of their young, controllable assets. On the other hand, their expensive, veteran talent has largely underperformed this season, making them unlikely to be moved. However, there is one piece that teams are likely to kick the tires on.

Will Sammon of The Athletic is expecting teams to "aggressively pursue" reliever Luke Weaver. The righty has been lights out across 37 innings with a 22.7% K-BB rate and a 1.95 ERA (2.41 FIP). Weaver, who is controllable through 2027, hasn't given up an extra base hit OR an earned run since April 30th.

Being Steve Cohen's stance on the Mets competing next season, it will likely take a significant haul to move on from the 32-year-old elite reliever. At the same time, being controllable in 2027 may not hold much weight with the impending lockout.

Do you think the Mets should move Weaver? Let us know in the comments!

View full rumor

[Cowtipper]

David Stearns is aggressively pursuing 105 losses, so I can't imagine we'll get anything meaningful in return ... for anyone.  

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

Weaver is signed through next season. If we hope to be good next season, why would we trade someone who can be an important part?

Trade the guys who are leaving anyway. Stearns said we are not rebuilding. 

 

[Benjamin Grimm]

I agree. I would only trade Weaver for someone who might have a greater impact for the Mets in 2027 than Weaver would. But that probably won't be the kind of player who would be traded for Weaver, unless perhaps it's a AAA star who's not quite ready but should be soon. That doesn't appear to be a likely scenario.

[Edgy MD]

Well, I certainly don't advocate for his trading, but all trades are to get better value back.

[Frayed Knot]

38 minutes ago, Marshmallowmilkshake said:

Weaver is signed through next season. If we hope to be good next season, why would we trade someone who can be an important part?

Weaver's not in a situation where his contract/age/performance etc. makes his a guy whom you NEED to deal.  But if someone is going to overwhelm the crap out of you with an offer then you're going to listen.

The Padres last year, smelling opportunity, traded four bodies, one of them a top-10 overall prospect, to the A's for reliever Mason Miller.  That prospect, Leo De Vries, is a SS putting up an 800 OPS in AA despite not turning 20 until after the season is over.

And while Miller has been great for SD -- how does 0.90 ERA; 0.80 WHIP; 3.6 H/9; 16.8 K/9 over 57 appearances sound? -- he alone wasn't enough to keep the Pads from losing in the WC round [2-1 to CHC] in '25 or from going through an 8-game losing streak (ended yesterday) or being below .500 this year [44 - 45]. 

Weaver's been great. but he'll also appear in about 65 of so innings/games this year so there's only so much one reliever can do. And the same qualities that make him valuable to us in '27 also make him valuable to someone else. It pays to see how far a team will take that gamble.

[Benjamin Grimm]

33 minutes ago, Edgy MD said:

Well, I certainly don't advocate for his trading, but all trades are to get better value back.

If you were responding to my post, what I meant was 2027 value, not 2028 through 2030 value. 

[Centerfield]

Relievers are incredibly inconsistent.  I don't know that I have a lot of faith in Weaver keeping up his performance through the end of 2026, much less 2027.  If someone is willing to offer a good prospect package, I say you pull the trigger.

But I mean like real prospects.  Not the ones we talk ourselves into believing in.  

[Edgy MD]

42 minutes ago, Benjamin Grimm said:

If you were responding to my post, what I meant was 2027 value, not 2028 through 2030 value. 

Not really in response to that, but generally speaking.

If the Mets can get six months of value out of a player in 2027, great.  He's obviously producing right now above the level he was at when he was signed.

But if another team can get that plus two more months of value, with those extra two months coming in crunch time 2026, plus quite possibly playoff time 2026, he might be worth more to them than the Mets, and they might compensate the Mets accordingly, especially as his performance has raised his value to something like a peak level.

Might, might, might.  I dunno, know.  All trades stink, but that's how selling off as the trade deadline approaches works — guys gradually become more valuable to good teams than they are to bad teams.

[Cowtipper]

I'd say keep the mediocre core, let the team sink this year. Trade the dead weight (poor performers) and the top performers -- Weaver, Raley, Brazoban (while you can), Warren (while you can). Minter. It'll be rough this year and probably next year, but if we get good prospects and keep them, we could see the Mets build a solid powerhouse like the Orioles did for a couple years. 

[ashie62]

Weaver is here, paid for and effective 

[smg58]

There's a decent chance we could sell very high on Weaver.  Good set-up guys are not hard to find for his salary or less, so if somebody is offering serious value, you have to do it.

[The Hot Corner]

I would rather trade Williams and make Weaver the closer next year.

[Edgy MD]

Well, sure.  I imagine we all want to keep the guy doing better and shed the guy doing more poorly, but the better compensation tends to come in the former case, so guys playing well get traded as often as guys playing badly.

More often at the trade deadline.

[Edgy MD]

This is Addison Reed 2.0, and the Mets are looking for redemption.

[Edgy MD]

Weaver has always looked, to me, like character actor Jeffrey Donovan, who always plays cads and other villainous charmers, so while I salute and celebrate him and his perseverance, there is something that makes me worry that he has an underlying scheme.

[MFS62]

20 hours ago, Centerfield said:

But I mean like real prospects.  Not the ones we talk ourselves into believing in.  

Bingo! Until they prove themselves, prospects are just suspects.

And - I didn't notice the resemblance to Weaver, But I liked Jeffrey Donovan in the tv series Burn Notice. He had chemistry with Gabrielle Anwar. 

Later

[Frayed Knot]

So if all prospects are suspects what's the difference between prospects and 'real' prospects?

[Centerfield]

7 minutes ago, Frayed Knot said:

So if all prospects are suspects what's the difference between prospects and 'real' prospects?

I just meant highly rated prospects. I realize these sometimes don’t pan out as well, but I’m not interested in moving Weaver for a lottery ticket. 

[Edgy MD]

They are all lottery tickets, from Joe Schlabotnik to Shohei Ohtani.

Nobody proves anything.  They just shave away doubt.  There are different degrees of doubt and hope for different players — and these levels certainly differ from observer to observer — but nothing resembling proof. 

If there were, they would not have to play the games.  The future is unwritten for us all.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

16 hours ago, Edgy MD said:

This is Addison Reed 2.0, and the Mets are looking for redemption.

Maybe we he'll fetch us Gerson Bautista Jr.

 

[Edgy MD]

1 minute ago, Johnny Lunchbucket said:

Maybe we he'll fetch us Gerson Bautista Jr.

That would be more like redumbtion. 

A lot of people don't know dumb has a b!

[Brock Beauchamp]

23 hours ago, Centerfield said:

Relievers are incredibly inconsistent.  I don't know that I have a lot of faith in Weaver keeping up his performance through the end of 2026, much less 2027.  If someone is willing to offer a good prospect package, I say you pull the trigger.

But I mean like real prospects.  Not the ones we talk ourselves into believing in.  

Yeah, this is my take as well. If someone out there is willing to offer you good value for a reliever, you take that almost every time.

[Frayed Knot]

But this still all gets us back to the topic at hand which is, when you're dealing with/for prospects, who meets the definition of 'Good Value' usually gets decided well after the deal happens.

[The Hot Corner]

2 hours ago, Edgy MD said:

A lot of people don't know dumb has a b!

That's because they're dum!

[Frayed Knot]

Or they're loosers!!

[The Hot Corner]

I just think that if the Mets truly intend to be playoff contenders next season, it is more important to hold someone like Weaver.  He is far more likely, to be of value and contribute to winning next season than a solid prospect that is likely 1-3 years away from contributing to the MLB club.  Of the top 20 prospects on MLB prospects list, only 3 of them are at AAA.  12 of them are in AA and the remaining 5 are in A or lower.  They are not likely to make a difference in the teams competitiveness next season.  It doesn't change dramatically, as you move down the list.

If they want to trade Peralta and or Williams, that's fine with me.  Of the players the Mets would likely be looking to move at (or before) the deadline, they are not likely to obtain anyone that would make a difference for 2027.

[Edgy MD]

It's not an either-or choice, though.  They can trade him for someone awesome, and sign someone else awesome in the offseason to be next-year's Luke Weaver.

And who knows?  Maybe they will move him for someone who makes a

It is, of course, a challenge to pull of both these moves — certainly — but that is the opportunity that moves teams to act in such circumstances.

I'm always in favor of holding, though.