That is what strikes me about this trade. In comes Russell Branyan who makes absolutely nothing this year and has a $5 million mutual option for 2011 and out goes Ezequiel Carrera and Juan Diaz.
I am sure someone will bring up that trading prospects to Cleveland for 1B/DH bats has worked out so well for us in the past, but neither of Carrera or Diaz seems like much of a threat to make us regret their absence. I was fond of Carrera because of his walks and left handed bat, but they were never supplemented with any other useful Major League skill. While he seemed like a decent enough 4th outfielder, we already have Ryan Langerhans around and never use him so...
Diaz is tougher to know about simply because he's younger with less of a track record. His numbers in high-A look decent, especially for a short stop but there's that whole High Desert problem and adjusted for park, Diaz's numbers were below league average. That doesn't mean he won't eventually become a Major League piece in some form, but he is the sort of Minor League depth worth sacrificing if you deem it necessary.
The question is, was this necessary? On its own, this trade makes little sense. It makes tons of sense if we had the record of the Angels, but we have the record of the Mariners. That's a bad record. WOW! THAT'S A BAD RECORD! My thoughts turn to what else this trade could mean.
It could mean Zduriencik intends for Branyan to stick around through next season. Branyan's $5 million option would be more intriguing if it were completely club controlled, but one wonders if this past winter's experience might make him more likely to agree to exercise it and thus avoid the whole not having a job hassle. Then again, one also wonders how he feels about the way he left Seattle.
It could mean that Zduriencik knows Cliff Lee is on the way out super soon and wanted to brunt some of the pain sure to be experienced by the fans by bringing back someone they enjoyed at little to no cost. Sort of like a miniaturized version of bringing Junior back. This is pure speculation.
Two people that have to be wondering what's up are Mike Carp and Casey Kotchman. We need to make room on the active roster for Branyan so I assume Carp heads back to Tacoma, which is good for him because he's better off playing than sitting so that Josh Wilson of all people can play first base.
In a sort of conclusion, the bad news is that I have no idea what this trade means. The good news is that Russell Branyan looks like 2009 Russell Branyan still which means oh thank god finally some decent hitting. If nothing else, 2010 just got more bearable.
0 recs | 354 comments
Just speculating
But I do wonder if the M’s are talking to a team that was looking for a little something extra in a Lee deal and didn’t want any part of Casey Kotchman. Something like “throw in Branyan and we’ll give you another prospect.” You’re right, though, it still doesn’t make much sense.
MikeGianella - June 26, 2010
This was my thought.
I almost hit post when yours popped up first. I have nothing of significance to add.
misterjonez - June 26, 2010
I had that idea briefly myself, but the more I think about it it doesn't pass the smell test.
Said team could’ve just gone to Cleveland directly.
Jeff Nye - June 26, 2010
For a couple of C- prospects no less
Poochie - June 26, 2010
What if Lopez is the throw in
Branyan makes it easier on us if he is.
stufr - June 27, 2010
My first thought was that they want to keep him around in 2011, but my confidence in that theory is shrinking by the minute
Griffin Cooper - June 26, 2010
Well my theory was that we're trading Lopez and putting Branyan at third sooooooooooooooooo yeah...
Slurvey - June 26, 2010
I liked that theory last year
until I saw Branyan play
Matthew - June 26, 2010
Well we could trade Lopez, place Figgins at 3rd, and move Josh Wilson to 2nd.
beastwarking - June 26, 2010
Counting the seconds of hang time on a Branyan HR sounds pretty ok to me.
Other than Felix on the mound or remarking on how ugly Jack Wilson’s face is there’s not a lot worth writing home about
Kermit. - June 26, 2010
Yeah this season just became more watchable and they needed that.
Sec 108 - June 26, 2010
Neat.
killer_ewok18 - June 26, 2010
Please tell me that was a reference to that Staples commercial.
Goose - June 26, 2010
What happens if I don't?
Matthew - June 26, 2010
I will be dissapointed.
Goose - June 26, 2010
I hate that commercial a lot
What are the odds that 2 people that obnoxious could be in the same store at the same time
Griffin Cooper - June 26, 2010
Have you ever worked retail?
Two Rs and Two Ls - June 26, 2010
WOW!
THOSE ARE LOW ODDS!
James F'n X - June 26, 2010
My guess is this is just a move to make the M's more watchable.
Who doesn’t love watching a Branyan dinger? Maybe a few more people will come out to the park due to that possibility.
I Lick Squirrels - June 26, 2010
Exactly. I think Jack and Wak would love to get back to .500 so this season doesn't look
like a total embarrassment. They aren’t nuts enough to think this team is still contending. I think winning a few more games matters to them, even though most of us here couldn’t care less.
Rudy4three - June 26, 2010
Exactly
This makes watching the Mariners more enjoyable. Ultimately making the Mariners fun to watch is Z’s job.
Ideally he would do that by taking them to the playoffs. But, without that he clearly wants to continue to put a quality product out there for the fans.
Snuffleupagus - June 26, 2010
I think Matthew might be getting at the meat of it in the last line.
This might just be about making 2010 less horrible to watch.
Jeff Nye - June 26, 2010
Is it utterly ludicrous to think that this is intended to improve the return for Lee?
It seems really far-fetched, but it might just be Jack signaling to whichever teams are lowballing him at this stage in the process that he won’t accept eighty cents on the dollar for the best player available at this deadline.
misterjonez - June 26, 2010
OK, so M's try to re-sign him to a one-year ~$3-4 M deal.
He says no, eventually signs a $2m + $5m player option deal. Some small part of the downside risk is now gone, because Branyan’s proven that his back problems aren’t bad enough that they force him to retire (or sap his power). So now they’ve got a less risky $1m+$5m option deal.
Ok, cool, as far as it goes. Now why didn’t they do this a month ago?
marc w - June 26, 2010
That's the odd question.
Maybe they did? Maybe the Indians didn’t want to wave the flag in May?
Matthew - June 26, 2010
I can see Cleveland's price being higher in May/early June
but I can also see Carrera’s value being higher in May/early June so it sort of cancels out.
And if the Indians are indeed kicking in money for 2010, then I really don’t have any idea. You’d think that they were sufficiently out of it in mid-May that they would’ve traded Branyan for salary relief then.
marc w - June 26, 2010
You can't bring Branyan back next year and be serious about winning.
We already have Bradley for 2011, and you can’t tell me that a roster with Branyan and Bradley is a contending one, given that one of those guys will be forced into the field everyday.
Rudy4three - June 26, 2010
Misread your post. Sorry.
Rudy4three - June 26, 2010
What?
Branyan is a perfectly fine defensive 1B
Matthew - June 26, 2010
I think he's talking more from an injury standpoint
Jeff Nye - June 26, 2010
Yup.
Rudy4three - June 26, 2010
It's a far cry from Branyan's fragility at 1B to "cannot be serious about winning"
That’s just way overstepping the bounds of logic
Matthew - June 26, 2010
Well, it might be a little histrionic, but you're going to have to figure out SOME way to protect yourself against all the injury risk.
And do so in a manner that isn’t going to cost you wins.
Jeff Nye - June 26, 2010
Branyan isn't Jack Wilson.
And Carp probably isn’t going anywhere.
Matthew - June 26, 2010
I'm not sure he is much less fragile than Jack Wilson, but we're sortof splitting hairs.
Jeff Nye - June 26, 2010
There just isn't much payroll flexibility heading into next season
and I don’t think it would be wise to invest 16 million of those dollars into Bradley and Branyan, when both are injury prone and one would be forced into an everyday fielding role. Although I suppose they could setup some type of rotation with another guy or two.
Rudy4three - June 26, 2010
We don't have a choice with Bradley. It's pointless to bring him up.
Matthew - June 26, 2010
No, it's not splitting hairs. It's a meaningful difference.
Jack Wilson plays SS, a position of no depth in our organization and a tough one to fill. Jack Wilson also has a documented severe problem with nagging day to day injuries in addition to meaningful DL type injuries.
Russell Branyan plays 1B, a position of decent depth in our system and an easy position to fill as we have so seen. People also seem to be taking 2009 to be stereotypical of every Branyan season. It wasn’t. Back injuries are worrisome yes, but Branyan hasn’t been breaking down left and right for the past five years.
Matthew - June 26, 2010
I think in the main you're right; but I think we've had better luck filling SS this year than 1B.
In any case, I agree that saying that we can’t win with Branyan and Bradley both on the roster is a stretch.
Jeff Nye - June 26, 2010
It's also odd that we gave up some SS depth to acquire a 1B in this move.
Not that the SS depth is amazing, but….still.
marc w - June 26, 2010
We certainly have and that's why. Luck.
Matthew - June 26, 2010
I for one would like welcome our new dinger overlord.
Robert - June 26, 2010
I am giving up beer until Branyan hits his first dinger
Matthew - June 26, 2010
When Branyan's back gives out won't you look foolish.
Slurvey - June 26, 2010
He'll throw it out hitting a 400 foot dinger
At least he’d go out with a bang.
Brian Floyd - June 26, 2010 via mobile
800*
killer_ewok18 - June 26, 2010
More likely swinging through a changeup
Bearskin Rugburn - June 27, 2010
Wonder if it has anyhting to do with Sweeney out yet again with the back...
msb - June 26, 2010
We are now debating the injury risks of Mike Sweeney and Russell Branyan.
This is a topic that 2010 has made relevant.
marc w - June 26, 2010
Well, we spent most of 209 debating the injury risks of Mike Sweeney and Russell Branyan too
Matthew - June 26, 2010
Fuck all of recent times except for the best bits of Felix and all of Cliff Lee.
Oh, and the plucky Brian Sweeney performance from today. But fuck today starting IMMEDIATELY after the game.
marc w - June 26, 2010
Well being 1800 years old comes with injury risks.
el pato - June 26, 2010
I can't believe I didn't see that.
misterjonez - June 26, 2010
I'd be okay with Mike Sweeney going away as a result of this move
Jeff Nye - June 26, 2010
If we were a contender I would agree.
But he’s kind of fun to watch. Like will he die or stop hitting first?
the other side - June 26, 2010
I don't like him at all, mostly because of his comical handling of the Napgate incident
Jeff Nye - June 26, 2010
Awww I thought it was cute.
By the way, if you just coined Napgate, props.
the other side - June 26, 2010
I have bad news!
marc w - June 26, 2010
?
Jeff Nye - June 26, 2010
Good news everybody
Marinerfanjake - June 26, 2010
Everyone, even!
Griffin Cooper - June 26, 2010
Depending on the market this summer...
If Bradley doesn’t correct his hitting, we’ve potentially got 1B and DH up for grabs. If Branyan demonstrates his health and continued ability to hit the shit out of the ball, why not pick up his option? It may be one of the cheaper solutions to our lack of hitters in the lineup. And if Bradley’s hitting picks up, we can let Branyan walk and not lose much at all.
It may be a move solely for 2010, but there are plenty of scenarios where Branyan at 1B for 2011 isn’t a terrible decision.
Fuckmikereilly - June 26, 2010
So are we releasing Kotchman or what?
And couldn’t we have traded for someone who’d be useful in the future?
Poochie - June 26, 2010
I imagine that Jack Zduriencik explored that option.
Matthew - June 26, 2010
Probably but it's hard to give them the benefit of the doubt at the moment
Poochie - June 26, 2010
While I question some of their moves
I don’t think they’re dithering morons with no concept of things like service time and acquiring players for the long haul.
Matthew - June 26, 2010
True
Poochie - June 26, 2010
I do hate them for not signing Cliff Lee
Matthew - June 26, 2010
All this talk is just a smoke screen for the long term negotiations.
This trade too.
the other side - June 26, 2010
Maybe they just can't
Poochie - June 26, 2010
I love that he has a great chance to end up leading this team in homers.
I also can see this being enough to get this team wellover 600 runs on the year.
Sec 108 - June 26, 2010
He already does lead this team in home runs.
the other side - June 26, 2010
No, he has ten for Cleveland and zero for us.
Sec 108 - June 26, 2010
In terms of number of dingers in baseball, but yeah.
the other side - June 26, 2010
Dingers are fun.
Doesn’t look like we actually lost anything. I have no idea why the hell we did this. Z showing us he can get anybody for any price?
the other side - June 26, 2010
Apparently David Pauley might be called up as well? (according to Divish)
Although I would imagine this is an unrelated bullpen depth move for the next few games. Maybe Olson goes away for a little while?
Fuckmikereilly - June 26, 2010
My Theory
Branyan is a piece in a Lee trade to the Mets to t
tait644 - June 26, 2010
Couldn't the Mets buy him from the Indians just as easily
and why bother flying him into Milwaukee if he’s just part of a three way deal
Poochie - June 26, 2010
Maybe Jack Z just wanted to see him hit a really long dinger before he moved on.
Fuckmikereilly - June 26, 2010
Maybe it's all part of a three-way deal.
tait644 - June 26, 2010
The only good reason to ever do those in baseball is if you don't have the prospects to get the guy you want.
Every team in baseball has the equivalent of Carrera and Diaz.
Jeff Nye - June 26, 2010
Basically, for this theory to work, Zduriencik has to be the Billy Mays of baseball.
Which, you know, I’ve heard weirder theories.
marc w - June 26, 2010
It would make sense
But Draft picks!
Marinerfanjake - June 26, 2010
What use do they have for Branyan?
Rudy4three - June 26, 2010
If we traded for Ike Davis i take it
Marinerfanjake - June 26, 2010
My comment got cut off.
I was going to say that Ike Davis comes here.
Thin, I know…
tait644 - June 26, 2010
I'm not sure what this move means and I'm not 100% sure on why they did it, but holy crap I love Russ!
MFAN - June 26, 2010
MLBTR notes that Mariners 1Bmen are hitting 195/.279/.295 as a group.
That’s, ummm….fucking terrible.
craig3410 - June 26, 2010
You might say...
WOW! THAT’S A BAD STAT LINE!
the other side - June 26, 2010
It was funny the first time someone re-used the reference. Not the second time.
Matthew - June 27, 2010
You shouldn't create jokes unless you understand that they will be driven forcefully into the ground by Zangief.
abender20 - June 27, 2010
Rolling the dice that Kotchman could be this year's Gutierrez came up snake-eyes.
ignacio - June 26, 2010
I still like the gamble even though it didn't work out.
Kotchman had shown enough in the past that it was worth taking a shot, especially in the context of the Mariners’ payroll constraints.
Jeff Nye - June 26, 2010
Plus, Bill Hall
killer_ewok18 - June 26, 2010
I thought it looked interesting -- no one foresaw him falling off a cliff.
ignacio - June 26, 2010
Still tons of bad luck at play. .198 BABIP despite a roughly league average LD rate.
Matthew - June 27, 2010
It's just one of Jack's quirks
He loves collecting guys who had potential but haven’t quite reached it yet. And for the most part, it’s been 50/50. Guti, Aardsma and Branyan worked out, while Snell, Kotchman and Cedeno haven’t.
Benne - June 27, 2010
Via Baker:
Now, with his team scoring just two runs per game on many nights, he felt he had to do something to boost the offense. Not necessarily because he thinks the team can overcome a 14 game deficit to win the AL West — he won’t speculate on that one way or the other. But because winning still matters, whether a team is going for it or still developing.
“If you look at our team, as we move forward, just about every player who is here now will be here again next year,‘’ he said. "We’re committed to the development of our players and that goal, that objective has never changed for us. But part of that development process is also winning games. We want our players to be able to experience winning games this year. And we’re trying to do what we can to give them what they need to get there.’’
msb - June 26, 2010
"he" being Zduriencik.
Meant to fix that.
msb - June 26, 2010
I read the subject as "Vin Baker"
and thought “When did he become a baseball analyst…”
It’s bedtime.
Omerta - June 27, 2010
Cliff Lee? Sean White? Casey Kotchman? Mike Sweeney? Rob Johnson?
The problem with “just about every player who is here now will be here again next year” is that collectively they aren’t that good.
eponymous_coward - June 27, 2010
That's probably why he said "just about every" rather than "every"
Mariner John - June 27, 2010
Harebrained theory...
Is there any chance this is part of a plan to try to get Cliff Lee on board long term?
Jeff Nye - June 26, 2010
Not unless this leads to a four-team trade netting us
Albert Pujols, Derek Jeter, Roy Halladay, Ryan Howard and Chase Utley.
craig3410 - June 26, 2010
I wouldn't want Jeter or Howard.
Neither one is worth their contract.
I Lick Squirrels - June 26, 2010
Jeter is a fine piece of ass
Fuck off with that disrespect.
OceanBird - June 26, 2010
He's also making $21 million this year and is in decline.
I don’t want to fork over 1/4 of the payroll to an aging SS who has never been very good defensively and currently has a .337 wOBA, the lowest since his rookie year.
I Lick Squirrels - June 26, 2010
C'mon, now. We're not THAT far away from being a contender.
Jeff Nye - June 26, 2010
If the team signs Cliff Lee, they'd basically be screwed on acquiring anyone else in the offseason outside of trades, and Lee is about the only trade bait.
Doesn’t smell right.
abender20 - June 26, 2010
Yeah, I don't think it's realistic either, just spitballing
Jeff Nye - June 26, 2010
This is clearly part of a plan to get Cliff Lee on board, make the M's perennial contenders, and bring back the Sonics
lemonverbena - June 26, 2010
Not unless ownership is authorizing a really large spike in payroll
You probably shouldn’t read this unless you want to be depressed about 2011, but given Branyan’s 5 million option for next year, and that some folks are due raises, and that Lee is the only really large chunk of salary coming off the books, Branyan might be most of our offseason 2010-2011 FA budget. Maybe we’ll luck out and get Bedard, too, but… ugh. In essence, we may be reduced to hoping that kids break out in 2011, thanks to Jack Wilson + Milton Bradley sucking up 20 million in salary between them and maybe being worth 2-3 WAR between them.
eponymous_coward - June 27, 2010
Bedard has an 11M option on 2011
Matthew - June 27, 2010
That's not going to fit into the team budget, is it?
eponymous_coward - June 27, 2010
Based on what I've heard, I highly highly doubt it.
Matthew - June 27, 2010
Acting as amanuensis for royalcurve:
" YAY!!! "
msb - June 26, 2010
I thought it was more: "Huh??? Uh, cool, I guess?"
Yours is pithier, however.
marc w - June 26, 2010
Whoops, now I see what you're doing, Burton.
I’ll be over here, with the grammar nazis and the rest of the mooks. My apologies.
marc w - June 26, 2010
It's true. First came confusion, then YAY!
Goddammit I missed Branyan!
royalcurve - June 26, 2010
Well, it has always been said that Z has been looking to add more offense to the team.
As with the case of Russell Branyan, it may be that Z wants to see how the team would do with an actual power hitter in the lineup.
Relying on Bradley, Lopez, and Sweeney to hit hasn’t worked out too well. Although the lineup we had at the beginning of the year should have been an improvement, this team’s overall offensive approach consists of manufacturing runs and bunching hits together with the occasional homerun. Adding Branyan certainly boost the power aspect of the team.
But that’s just me trying to see what the FO sees. I get the impression that Zduriencik doesn’t want to put forth a less than stellar product willingly (Sweeney and Griffey jokes aside). My first reaction to this move was that of befuddlement but it came cheap. We’ll see what happens I guess.
ThundaPC - June 26, 2010 via mobile
Befuddled/befuddlement is my new favorite word, thank you msb.
TrustBaseball - June 26, 2010
.
msb - June 26, 2010
Well, now we know what caused that expression!
Jeff Nye - June 26, 2010
The baseball grapevine was obviously working well.
msb - June 26, 2010
Perfect
Goose - June 26, 2010
BRANYAN!!!
Mariner Melee - June 26, 2010
The more things change,
Janic - June 26, 2010
No
This is not funny
killer_ewok18 - June 26, 2010
This will never be funny. He will and should never be missed.
This man was a complete FU in every way.
TrustBaseball - June 27, 2010
I don't think this is one of those things where someday you look back and laugh.
There are plenty of those occurrences, but his time in Seattle is not one of them. He was awful, pure awful.
TrustBaseball - June 27, 2010
Absolutely not.
BrianL - June 26, 2010
Kirk - June 27, 2010
Subject line please.
Robert - June 27, 2010
No.
No we do not.
Benne - June 27, 2010
Nope, never ever.
joof - June 27, 2010
wrong
eponymous_coward - June 27, 2010
I will never miss that mother fucker.
How dare he come back to SafeCo.
Mariner Melee - June 27, 2010
BRANYAN!!!!!!!!!!
This move is somewhat peculiar, and kind of confusing.
But HOLY FUCK BRANYAN IS BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This does soften the incoming Cliff Lee departure for me, I have a horribly irrational love for The Muscle
BigR - June 26, 2010
Sometimes I wonder if Jack just makes trades for the hell of it.
Fuckmikereilly - June 26, 2010
I for one welcome our new shellfish overlord.
.Taylor - June 26, 2010
Maybe Jack just thought
this team needs some manly manliness once more.
msb - June 26, 2010
That's awesome.
SeaKoala - June 27, 2010
This move now makes no sense to me. I wonder what GMZ is up to.
For the life of me I cannot figure it out.
TrustBaseball - June 26, 2010
My guess, someone finally got around to grading the homework that was turned in on Branyan.
Janic - June 26, 2010
YES!! We can use this again!
Fin - June 26, 2010
He did this twice!
Big Jared - June 26, 2010
Well, at least now there's actually a cleanup hitter on the team
ignacio - June 26, 2010
I like this move, but I don't like this move.
In theory, giving up two minor-league guys without high ceilings for a needed upgrade is a good move. But of all the OFs we could have traded, I wanted to trade Carrera least. He has an above-average eye, excellent defense at a premium position, and wreaks havoc on the basepaths. In my mind, he can be someone who posts gaudy defensive numbers while hitting enough to be a solid asset.
Matthew, I don’t buy it when you say
I guess we differ on his projection here a little bit, but I believe the Mariners just gave up their biggest hidden asset. True, Carrera’s got no power but he makes solid contact, walks at a good clip, and plays stellar defense combined with plus plus baserunning. As a 22 year old last year in AA, he posted a .402 wOBA. In my opinion, his floor is a reserve outfielder, his likely projection a tick below-average starter, and ceiling a 3-4 WAR player.
As you can see, I’m a little bit obsessed with Ezequiel Carrera, which might lead me to an exaggerated overforecasting. But either way, I had him penciled into the 2012 roster as someone who could legitimately contribute if Guti/Saunders/Ichiro! had an injury. Carrera’s past performances and skill set suggest strongly that he can be a solid contributor on a major league team, and you don’t throw a guy like that away when you’re 14 games out of a playoff spot.
perfectstrat - June 26, 2010
I hate to be pedantic, but no player's floor is "reserve outfielder"
Aaron Campeau - June 26, 2010
Well, no prospect anyways
Aaron Campeau - June 26, 2010
I don't think there's any realistic scenario in which Ezequiel Carrera turns into a 3-4 win player.
He might end up as a serviceable regular, but that’s about his top-end as far as I’m concerned.
Jeff Nye - June 26, 2010
I seem to remember this projection from something we regret:
From Jeff’s “Mariners on the Market”
Sure, Carrera may not become a superstar, but I can guarantee you no one ever thought Choo would post 5 WAR back in 2005. Carrera’s young and having a slightly below-average offensive year in AAA at 23. Give him time, unlike what we did in years past. Players develop, and no amount of scouting and analysis can perfectly project a player. In 3 years when we look back on this trade, we’ll find that at the very least the Mariners traded a solid bench player and at the most traded a valued contributor.
perfectstrat - June 26, 2010
Choo was much more of a prospect than Carrera will ever be.
And saying that Carrera’s floor is “a solid bench player” is absolute insanity. I’d say it’s 50/50 he ever stays in the majors for any appreciable amount of time.
Fuckmikereilly - June 26, 2010
And a .654 OPS isn't "slightly below-average."
Fuckmikereilly - June 26, 2010
Many players currently on our roster would love to have a .654 OPS.
But that doesn’t really say anything other than “we suck.” My point is, Carrera’s young, had success in the past, is encountering major adversity for the first time in his career at a high level, so why not let him play through it and see what he can do? The guy plays phenomenal defense and has shown the potential to hit like a smaller version of Chone Figgins. Clearly we differ on what Carrera can and can not achieve, but lets just leave it at that.
P.S. If he does turn out to be a 3-4 WAR player down the line, I want to be known as the guy who “called it.”
perfectstrat - June 27, 2010
You won't
beastwarking - June 27, 2010
Well, see, this has very little downside for you.
Fuckmikereilly - June 27, 2010
That would make it a good trade.
perfectstrat - June 27, 2010
Also, not to be condescending,
But looking back on that, we all look really stupid.
perfectstrat - June 26, 2010
Well in hindsight WOOOOOOW! But at the time of the deal it wasn't a bad deal.
Slurvey - June 26, 2010
WOW, THATS A BAD DEAL
perfectstrat - June 26, 2010
FUCK YOU
Matthew - June 27, 2010
No that was an awful deal
And perfectstrat conveniently left out the rest of that commentary that Jeff made on Cabrera:
“Not an A-list prospect, but certainly a guy who could help bring in a good starting pitcher from a rebuilding team.”
He didn’t say trade him for an old platoon bat rental. We all recognized his value as a prospect but thought he would be more valuable to other teams than us because yes, there didn’t appear to be a spot for him on our team at the time.
Fuckmikereilly - June 27, 2010
I wasn't trying to ridicule Jeff's analysis,
I just wanted to point out the hilarity that, looking back on it, we though Lopez-Betancourt was a viable middle infield.
That’s why I left out the second half of the A-cab comment.
perfectstrat - June 27, 2010
Well they were a viable infield at one point.
Slurvey - June 27, 2010
Under Bavasi, Lopez-Betancourt was a viable middle infield.
They were both young and yet to be tested.
TrustBaseball - June 27, 2010
And on long, fairly cheap deals
the Lopez part actually panned out okay, if you only count his middle infield years.
Fuckmikereilly - June 27, 2010
Exactly, and who could have predicted that Betancourt would turn into a lazy slug.
TrustBaseball - June 27, 2010
Ok, I agree.
But history can make us all look like fools, no matter how well grounded our predictions were at the time. Lopez has turned out decently for his contract, and Betancourt provided some value before spiraling into disaster.
perfectstrat - June 27, 2010
It kind of bugs me when teams deal from a position of strength
Because, of course, that strength can turn overnight into a weakness or a gaping hole that takes years to fix.
Fuckmikereilly - June 27, 2010
Yea, now we don't really have any near MLB outfield prospects.
Unless you count Carlos Peguero and Greg Halman (still a prospect?).
perfectstrat - June 27, 2010
Halman is destroying the ball actually
But I don’t count Peguero.
Fuckmikereilly - June 27, 2010
Yea, hopefully he keeps it going.
But then he’d be a classic sell-high guy.
perfectstrat - June 27, 2010
We don't really need any
Saunders Guti and Ichiro should all be here for at least 3-4 more years(Ichiro at 3-4)
EWeebs - June 27, 2010
RE:
perfectstrat - June 27, 2010
Because Saunders is an established major league regular at this point.
Fuckmikereilly - June 27, 2010
I have confidence in him. He has consistently put up good #'s and shown some potential at the big league level
EWeebs - June 27, 2010
So do I.
This doesn’t mean that LF is locked up for 3-4 years and the outfield is a position of strength.
Fuckmikereilly - June 27, 2010
If anything is a position of strength, its the OF
EWeebs - June 27, 2010
Remember when Catcher was a position of strength?
Hopefulmsfan - June 27, 2010
No
beastwarking - June 27, 2010
At least "supposedly."
Kenji, Clement, Johnson, Moore.
Hopefulmsfan - June 27, 2010
Did we ever have hope for RoJo?
And we all knew Clement couldn’t stick behind the plate
EWeebs - June 27, 2010
My bad.
Unfortunately, I didn’t start reading here until 2008. So I think I was brainwashed by what I heard from newspapers and espn.
Hopefulmsfan - June 27, 2010
I didn't start reading here until 2010
I just watched his play on the field
EWeebs - June 27, 2010
That's not at all true.
and yes, Johnson was a decent prospect at one point in time.
Aaron Campeau - June 27, 2010
No.
TrustBaseball - June 27, 2010
Nope
EWeebs - June 27, 2010
No one should count Peguero at the moment.
Halman, yeah, maybe.
JY - June 27, 2010
The problem isn't the deal.
The problem was we could have had BOTH parts of Cleveland’s 1B/DH platoon for nothing but extending a contract during the offseason.
This is where Bavasi screwed up. and, I suppose, GMZ, though signing Kotchman was more a case of a reasonable risk that didn’t pan out, as opposed to Carl Everett, which was just unbelievably stupid.
However, as I mentioned above, I think this deal is about nailing down a reasonably priced 1B/DH option for 2011 as much as for 2010.
eponymous_coward - June 27, 2010
They tried to keep Branyan last winter.
Branyan wanted way too much as his eventual contract shows
Matthew - June 27, 2010
OK, so I'll rephrase it.
The M’s went a different direction in 2010 and had good justification for doing it.
A do-over during a completely lost season for Branyan, even at a more reasonable price, isn’t a great idea.
eponymous_coward - June 27, 2010
You said it yourself, no one saw Choo turning out the way he did.
One miss doesn’t invalidate the entire idea of evaluating prospects.
Jeff Nye - June 26, 2010
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of this move myself.
But I’m about as likely to hook up with Jessica Alba as we are to be ruing giving up Ezequiel Carrera in a few years.
Jeff Nye - June 26, 2010
Well, Derek Jeter gave Jessica Alba herpes, so you know, watch out for yourself
lemonverbena - June 27, 2010
Why do you think I said it was unlikely?
Jeff Nye - June 27, 2010
Wow, I was way off.
Double06 - June 27, 2010
I hope you're right.
And I’m just a bitter fool.
perfectstrat - June 27, 2010
Huh, so was this mentioned?
Not that it really means anything but hey, free money!
Fuckmikereilly - June 26, 2010
Interesting...
Free money, or another player. Not likely to be a good player, but hey, prospects.
Matt Erickson - June 27, 2010
Prospects!
JY - June 27, 2010
BAZINGA!
Matt Erickson - June 27, 2010
Whelmed
JAH - June 26, 2010
I really didn't see this one coming.
I love the regime
beastwarking - June 26, 2010
I will say, this front office has a tremendous talent for doing thinngs that nobody is expecting.
I’m not convinced it’s particularly useful in this case, but if you told me last week we’d be trading for Russell Branyan I would’ve laughed at you.
Jeff Nye - June 26, 2010
Hitler did things that were unexpected too...like the Battle of the Bulge. That didn't turn out too good for him.
RustyJohn - June 26, 2010
They should really warn people about the lack of friction on this incline.
Mariner John - June 27, 2010
Godwin's Law!
Matt Erickson - June 27, 2010
I like it for the lack of suspense
With the HoRam and Bedard trades, we knew they were coming, but didn’t know when they were going to happen. Day after day we would hear news and stories about prospects and players. Then it would happen, and all of our hopes would explode at the realization that we just gave up 3 more players than needed.
At least with Z, we get the trade and that’s it. No speculation; just a trade and I like that.
beastwarking - June 27, 2010
I can not WAIT to see reunion hugs tomorrow.
Best part of the season.
Kenneth Arthur - June 26, 2010 via mobile
So let me get this straight, we give up two guys who really weren't in the team's plans and who likely won't pan out and we get someone who can drive in Guit, Ichiro and Figgins?
What exactly is the down side?
RustyJohn - June 26, 2010
Those players turn into something valuable and we gave them up for absolutely nothing?
I still think Branyan may play 1st or DH in 2011, but if this really is just a 2010 move, its remarkably pointless.
Fuckmikereilly - June 26, 2010
I think I'd have a better chance of winning 20 grand on a scratch off ticket than those players turning into something valuable
And it does help the team- no one is going to go to games, buy tickets, food or beer in August or September if they watch another three months of the M’s losing games 2-1.
RustyJohn - June 26, 2010
Small chance they turn into something valuable>>>>>>>absolutely nothing
If this is a 2010 move, it’s only downside.
Fuckmikereilly - June 27, 2010
Where did I say "absolutely nothing"? I said two guys who "likely won't pan out". Is anyone projecting these guys to be regular contributing major leaguers in the next 4 years?
RustyJohn - June 27, 2010
Perfectstrat
Jeff Nye - June 27, 2010
Ahhhh...
RustyJohn - June 27, 2010
Just Carrera.
He’s Adrian Beltre to my Red.
perfectstrat - June 27, 2010
Sorry
What I meant was, the value that small chance they turn into something valuable outweighs the value Russell Branyan brings to this team long-term, which is absolutely nothing (unless he sticks around for 2011).
Fuckmikereilly - June 27, 2010
I would agree that he brings nothing long-term, however, I still would have a glimmer of joy when the Muscle comes to the plate. It makes the games slightly more bearable.
And my continued watching of games on FSN can only mean millions in revenue for the EQC.
RustyJohn - June 27, 2010
We come again?
Jeff Nye - June 27, 2010
I know I just did
beastwarking - June 27, 2010
Man, those commercials weren't creepy at all until you said this :(
Jeff Nye - June 27, 2010
I love Muscle
But fuck EQC. Any organization that supports Michael Bolton deserves to burn in hell next to Player A and the coked-out corpse of Courtney Love.
Fuckmikereilly - June 27, 2010
MC Hammer is there tonight.
Hammer Time.
RustyJohn - June 27, 2010
This makes me much more likely to support them.
Fuckmikereilly - June 27, 2010
And Styx is playing next month.
Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto.
RustyJohn - June 27, 2010
If the only song they play is Renegade, I will pay approximately 25 cents to see that show.
Fuckmikereilly - June 27, 2010
Styx wrote a song about Rob Johnson?
Mr Roboto?
Henry H - June 27, 2010
Bullshit
Nobody would ever thank Rob Johnson for anything.
I Lick Squirrels - June 27, 2010
Sell sell sell!
They’re selling? They buy buy buy!!
lemonverbena - June 26, 2010
*Then
lemonverbena - June 26, 2010
Nice.
RustyJohn - June 26, 2010
So do we get to see him start tomorrow?
Slurvey - June 26, 2010
I believe Drayer said he's arriving after the start of the game, so I'd bet no.
Fuckmikereilly - June 26, 2010
Pinch hit homer in the muscle's return
RustyJohn - June 26, 2010
Who does Russell replace on the 25-man?
joey90 - June 26, 2010
PLEASE BE SEAN WHITE!
Slurvey - June 26, 2010
Probably Carp, Sweeney could go on the DL as well.
MFAN - June 26, 2010
I would assume they keep Kotchman- he's at least good as a defensive replacement.
RustyJohn - June 26, 2010
Carp to AAA is my guess, but who the hell knows.
We might trade him and a PTBNL to Angel Pagan or something, at this point.
Jeff Nye - June 27, 2010
Oh Carp
We hardly got Jeff to design, manufacture and eat a nacho hat for thee.
lemonverbena - June 27, 2010
I thought that was a pie volcano.
JAH - June 27, 2010
.
lemonverbena - June 27, 2010
I have this image in my head of Z talking to him like Sosa spoke to Tony Montana in "Scarface"...
“Just remember one thing. Don’t fuck me, Tony. Don’t you ever fuck me.”
RustyJohn - June 27, 2010
Or Daniel Plainview
“If there isn’t oil there, I’m going to come looking for you and I’m going to want more than my 300 dollars.”
RustyJohn - June 27, 2010
.
lemonverbena - June 27, 2010
I love that fucking movie
Especially the scene when he bitch slaps Eli and drags him into the mud.
RustyJohn - June 27, 2010
Very impressive movie.
Usually the critics and I are at odds, but on that one we were in complete agreement.
“Aren’t you a healer? And a vessel for the HOLY SPIRIT!?”
misterjonez - June 27, 2010
This may be teetering on the verge of rosterbation now.
But, what if this meant one of our outfielders was being traded? With Bradley then moved to the OF full time, Branyan is the DH. Or I just need to get some sleep.
Hopefulmsfan - June 27, 2010
I really doubt this is a precursor to another move
Unless you count a Casey Kotchman DFA as a move.
Fuckmikereilly - June 27, 2010
.
lemonverbena - June 27, 2010
Holy shit; its like a sign or something
beastwarking - June 27, 2010
Any chance this means Nick Franklin will get moved up?
I’m interested in seeing how many HRs he can hit from both sides of the plate at High Desert.
Azchristopher - June 27, 2010
I think there's a likely chance of that happening.
perfectstrat - June 27, 2010
It's certainly possible.
We drafted a few veteran college shortstops who could fit in at Clinton almost immediately.
JY - June 27, 2010
I'm betting our hitters will all catch fire and start scoring runs
Right as our pitching implodes.
MT Olson - June 27, 2010
Sex Muscle
Love it. Welcome back.
Omerta - June 27, 2010
Yes, but why? What is going on here?
I don’t get this. It must be bedtime and this will all make sense in the morning.
TrustBaseball - June 27, 2010
It's funny, 248 comments and we still are no closer to figuring this out.
Jeff Nye - June 27, 2010
I think it's pretty much been figured out
He’s here to make the team less terrible in 2010, and might be able to help in 2011. I don’t think there’s any deeper reasoning.
Griffin Cooper - June 27, 2010
Basically.
I’m not enthusiastic about tossing away prospects to the Indians, more out of history than anything concrete and rational.
Diaz is a competent SS who hits sometimes and was probably behind Triunfel on our SS depth chart for the time being, and Triunfel could theoretically survive there until Franklin was ready.
Carrera is a centerfielder with a good eye whose bat is probably better than his glove, and the bat sorely lacks power. Saunders can probably play a bit of CF anyway if it comes to it.
I feel like we might be selling a bit low on both, which is a little awkward, and I don’t really see the long-term vision in the move, save that it frees up another 40-man spot for all the offseason additions we’ll need to make, and that’s a really dumb reason to make a move like this.
I appreciate that they’ve realized that Carp is probably not a long-term solution for this team. I dislike the idea that we’re paying prospects that might’ve been useful to pay late for a mistake made months ago.
JY - June 27, 2010
Langerhans can play CF!
FOR METHUSELAHS SAKE PLAY LANGERHANS
Matthew - June 27, 2010
Yes, do.
I keep forgetting about him. Probably because we don’t see him often enough :(
JY - June 27, 2010
Where's Jeff when you need him?
Fuckmikereilly - June 27, 2010
Somewhere being awesome
Jeff Sullivan - June 27, 2010
Godspeed, sir.
JY - June 27, 2010
I enjoy the fact that my confusion leads me to believe that the Front Office knows something I don't.
It’s somehow comforting.
Two Rs and Two Ls - June 27, 2010
So...
Is Carp getting sent down, Kotchman being released, or Sweeney going to the DL?
SeaKoala - June 27, 2010
Makes a lot of sense
Just Jack looking after his players. Everything in the power department has been a disaster. Now the boys have some pop to look forward to, the possibility of a game turning on a Branyon HR.
Doesn’t matter how good someone is in paper analysis, there’s a difference between that and actually dealing with the players. A team doesn’t become a non-team because it isn’t going to the playoffs. Jack is trying to make this the best team he can, with the failures that have already happened, with what is available.
Good move.
PackBob - June 27, 2010
Branyan.
It’s an ‘a’. It isn’t an ‘o’. This is not difficult.
Eyeball Kid - June 27, 2010
A team doesn't become a non-team or a contender just because you trade for Russ Branyan.
Realistically, your argument means you couldn’t trade Cliff Lee, because trading Lee almost certainly reduces the quality of the 2010 team. It also means you couldn’t have traded Randy Johnson or JJ Putz, two trades that very clearly paid off.
eponymous_coward - June 27, 2010
From Shannon Drayer's twitter account:
-Branyan on lineup card as extra-David Pauley here too
-Carp and Sweeney not on card. Looks like Sweeney to the DL
and those are direct “quotes”. I just copy-pasted
Karma Police - June 27, 2010
It feels like 2009
We got Branyan back. Maybe we can get Jarrod Washburn to and then we can win 85 games
Jose Lopez's swing - June 27, 2010
I thought you died.
Kirk - June 27, 2010
For what it's worth, as of te last update Elias had Branyan just short of a type B ranking
so if he doesn’t come back to the club next year we may get a delicious sandwich.
Bearskin Rugburn - June 27, 2010
I don't see any way he fails to exercise his option to make that happen.
He went through the free agent process last year and discovered what his market value was. Unless he does something insane like hit 30 homers the rest of the way, he’ll want to have that $5 million dollar paycheck.
nathaniel dawson - June 27, 2010
No, excuse me.
I thought someone earlier in the thread said it was a player option on Branyan’s contract. It’s listed at Cot’s as a mutual option, so if the M’s don’t exercise that option, I don’t think they would be able to offer him arbitration. It doesn’t look like they’d be in line for a compensation pick.
nathaniel dawson - June 27, 2010
I think they can decline the team part of the mutual option and still offer arbitration.
No idea what the arbitrators would give him though.
w00tah - June 27, 2010
Who remembers Jose Guillen?
Matthew - June 27, 2010
We don't want a supplemental round draft pick!
katal - June 27, 2010
I remember he was this close from still being a Mariner right now!
Poochie - June 27, 2010
Shapiro made a comment this morning
That Jack had called about Branyan a little while ago and this whole thing developed at a slow pace. Maybe Z was looking for a bat when he still thought there was a chance and by the time they agreed on the moving pieces just said “To hell with it, the price is right.”
Inevitably the Indians and Mariners are just going to merge into one frustrating, smart, shitty team. Then we don’t have to have these swap meets all the time.
Enjoy the Muscle, guys.
nickjs21 - June 27, 2010
Anthony Castrovince just tweeted
Mariners picking up rest of Branyan’s 2010 salary, Indians likely picking up the buyout of next year’s option. Just by the way.
nickjs21 - June 27, 2010
Huh?
I’m trying to make sense of this, but it just doesn’t add up. Cot’s doesn’t list a buyout for his contract, just a mutual option for $5 MM. So does he mean the Indians are picking up the $5 MM option for the M’s? We would get a year and a half of Branyan for 1 million?
That can’t be right, because, WooooHoooo!
nathaniel dawson - June 27, 2010
I believe Cleveland either had to pay for him or send us a prospect.
Eyeball Kid - June 27, 2010
Castrovince and Paul Hoynes, two Cleveland beat writers, are both saying it’s
A) Mariners pay for the rest of 2010, ~$750K.
B) Indians likely pay for a buyout of the 2011 mutual option at ~$500K. I think the “or send warm body” part is also in play.
nickjs21 - June 27, 2010
subject line
nickjs21 - June 27, 2010
'Warm body', yes.
I may have been getting ahead of myself with ‘prospect’.
Eyeball Kid - June 27, 2010
Where are they getting the buyout part from?
Cot’s doesn’t list a buyout, and since it’s a mutual option, the M’s could just decline to exercise their option and not have to pay him a thing.
Either they’re wrong or Cot’s is wrong.
nathaniel dawson - June 27, 2010
There certainly seems to be conflicting info. Both of these guys tweeted the info within a minute or so of each other, and they’re both in the press box right now for today’s game. I’d assume their info comes by way of a press release or whatever PR guy usually gives them this info.
Who knows.
nickjs21 - June 27, 2010
aaaaand late subject line etc etc
nickjs21 - June 27, 2010
Nope still don't get it
Branyan is the type of guy we should be dealing for prospects
Poochie - June 27, 2010
Apparently he is now our everyday 1st baseman.
msb - June 27, 2010
That's all well and good.
abender20 - June 27, 2010
Well it would suck if they sat him
Poochie - June 27, 2010
But Paperboy!
katal - June 27, 2010
I'm with you, dawg.
I appreciate that the front office is still doing their favorite thing and getting reasonable players for what seems like a reasonable cost, but we’re past that. If the goal is to have Branyan around next year, well, it’s still a gamble. Now this just leaves me with the concern that the team is going to try to pray for a miracle instead of cutting bait and preparing to avoid having this happen again next year.
abender20 - June 27, 2010
...Maybe they're playing him for a month and then flipping him for something better?
I doubt it though
Poochie - June 27, 2010
My gut instinct was to immediately reject this idea and then Omar Minaya.
abender20 - June 27, 2010
Oh I know
Poochie - June 27, 2010
There are 88 games still on the schedule
This was an easy way to make the product a little more palatable. Dingers!
lemonverbena - June 27, 2010
Maybe we still can
what are the rules on trading a guy twice in a season?
Bearskin Rugburn - June 27, 2010
Oh I see you got there like 40 minutes ago
Bearskin Rugburn - June 27, 2010
Blengino on the pregame
paraphrasing here— Jack has been talking with Shapiro for a while about Branyan, the financial numbers began to align better, it gives the young players more support to better their maturation, it gives them a player that could be in play next year as well.
msb - June 27, 2010
GMZ probably preparing for a Lee trade without a 1b/DH type included and he can have Branyan as insurance for 2011.
w00tah - June 27, 2010
I love it.
We’re not winning the division, but at this point if we can finish .500, this season will be a success. Branyan is not in the long term plans of this team, but he also is not blocking anyone at 1B. And as a fan, my rooting interest just went up a lot on non-Cliff and non-Felix days.
Welcome back, Muscle.
Wilder. - June 27, 2010
As Dave would say, what about the opportunity cost?
Poochie - June 27, 2010
I didn't buy this point of Dave's.
What are we missing out on? I’d rather watch Branyan hit dingers for a few months than confirm that Mike Carp is not the answer at first base.
There’s Kila Ka’aihue, but teams have been interested in him for a while now. The fact that KC is still clinging on to him indicates that he wouldn’t come cheap.
katal - June 27, 2010
I think it would make more sense to go find anyone interesting who is blocked or whatever
and see if they can’t play well enough to plug a hole on the cheap next year.
I’m not real excited about paying Branyan 5 or 6 million dollars to be our firstbaseman next year in his age 36 season, when our budget is going to be somewhat limited. For example, I’d rather pay 16-18m for Cliff Lee than pay the same amount for a few middling players.
Poochie - June 27, 2010
Who is to say Jack didn't try that?
Who is to say Jack isn’t still trying that?
I don’t see much point in getting upset over speculation.
Matthew - June 27, 2010
Especially as he will always confound us.
msb - June 27, 2010
Whether he tried, is trying, or will still try
It would seem the spot is taken. Branyan is no the type of player I would expect them to bench or release.
Poochie - June 27, 2010
Saunders could go back to Tacoma, Bradley back to LF and then DH or 1B is open
or Branyan or Bradley hits the DL. Or Branyan is traded again. Or whatever. There’s options if Jack manages to pull off a trade for an Alex Gordon or Ka’aihue
Matthew - June 27, 2010
After reading Dave's piece, this is how I feel.
Kila Ka’aihue is not as easy as an acquisition as someone like Ryan Langerhans.
Wilder. - June 27, 2010
But holy hell, what is Kansas City doing?
What more does Kila Ka’aihue have to prove?
Wilder. - June 27, 2010
I'd rather pay 16-18m for Lee, too...
But I just don’t see management buying the argument that they should expand payroll by 10 million or more when it’s very likely the current roster is going to finish below .500, and signing Lee still leaves you with gaping holes all over the roster. This is ESPECIALLY true when a number of GMZ’s recent acquisitions look pretty terrible (Snell, Wilson, Bradley, Kotchman). I don’t think I’d be going to MY boss and saying “hey, my last project didn’t turn out so great, but if you give me more responsibility for the company’s bottom line I’m sure the next one will do better”, which is in essence what you’re asking for when it comes to asking for serious bumps in payroll. I think he’s going to have to live within his current budget for 2011, or even take a cut since attendance is still shrinking.
eponymous_coward - June 27, 2010
Huh?
A season where you trade for Cliff Fucking Lee in the offseason is not a success if you have to bust your ass just to get to .500 by year’s end (which by no means is a given with this roster), and you’re out of the race by June 1.
If anything, this is closer to Cleveland circa 2002- where, yeah, trading away Colon worked out pretty OK in the long run, though you might also note that the Indians have had a grand total of two good seasons since then, and a whole lot of seasons where they crapped out like this.
eponymous_coward - June 27, 2010
I don't see how any of this is similar to trading Colon.
Mariner John - June 27, 2010
The Indians thought they would contend in 2002 with a pitching-heavy roster.
They didn’t so much, and traded an ace for talent.
eponymous_coward - June 27, 2010
a few things
- We dealt not only with Minaya there but a Minaya who was fearing contraction
- nobody is going to trade talent like that any more with the recent higher value on prospects
- any roster with Colon on it is heavy
westbrook - June 27, 2010
"at this point if we can finish .500, this season will be a success."
It’s a tale of two halves. The first half was utter failure. If this team can play 10+ games over .500 in the second half, you have some evidence that this team is only a couple moves away from being competitive in 2011. This should be looked at as a success, especially if the team is going to do it without Cliff Lee.
You have to look at the way things are now, not how they were 4 months ago. 2010 is a failed season, but that doesn’t mean we should hope the Mariners tank the 88 games remaining. To win, it will mean players like Saunders, Vargas, Gutierrez, Fister, Moore, etc, continued to develop. Just as Dave talks about opportunity cost, the Mariners have this lost season as an opportunity to develop all players at all positions. So from here on, this season will be a success if the Mariners develop a team that can win. We will still need to worry about certain areas like 1B and SS, but at least we figured out what we have in the other areas.
Wilder. - June 27, 2010
Do you think that the Mariners MINUS Cliff Lee (plus whatever we get for him, and Branyan) are a true-talent, .550-.575 team?
Because that is what 10 games over .500 from now to season’s end means in terms of a full season of play- a 90+ win team. You’re basically arguing we can add Branyan to the pile of collective suck of DH/1B, subtract Lee, add back talent, and improve the 2010 roster.
I’m sorry, I just don’t see it, unless we net GAIN MLB-ready WAR back in our deal (that means, we get more WAR from dealing Lee than we lose). This team was pegged at ~85 wins true talent WITH Cliff Lee AND Kotchman/Wilson/Bradley performing reasonably well, and C not being a total trainwreck, and the bullpen being OK-ish. I’ll grant that the rotation’s not too horrible… but it won’t stay that way. :(
eponymous_coward - June 27, 2010
True talent 80 win teams can play like 100 win teams for half a season.
If some of our guys can turn it around and perform like we think they should, the M’s absolutely have a chance of putting up a lot of wins the second half. Maybe not a real good chance, but of course, it could happen. If it does, I think we’ll be glad they added Branyan.
nathaniel dawson - June 27, 2010
And you can win the Powerball.
Is the point hoping for flukes, or building towards excellence?
eponymous_coward - June 27, 2010
I think the point for the M's is trying to make their team better however they can.
And put themselves in a position to compete for the playoffs if things turn their way. This looks to make their team better, without seeming to hurt it in any way.
nathaniel dawson - June 27, 2010
Go look at coolstandings.com
See that “0.2%”?
I’m just very, very skeptical that adding a 35 year old ~league average 1B (when healthy) is particularly meaningful in this circumstance. It’s better than screwing around with the likes of Sweeney and Griffey, but if this is all “let’s make the team as awesome as possible for the rest of the year”, then you shouldn’t be trading Lee, should you?
eponymous_coward - June 27, 2010
I think that depends on the return you get for him
If the return is adequate, trading Lee seems like a smart move. A move that would make the team better. I don’t think Jack really wants to trade him, but he probably will because he’s a smart guy and it will be the smart move to make.
“I’m just very, very skeptical that adding a 35 year old ~league average 1B (when healthy) is particularly meaningful in this circumstance.”
It probably won’t be. There’s little chance that the M’s can even get into a position to make a run for the playoffs. But the chance is there, and beyond that, adding incremental wins and putting a better product on the field helps maintain their fan base. Just like anything, it doesn’t come with a potential downside — there is a chance that those two players we gave up could provide significant value in the future. The chances of that happening are probably about as high as the Mariner’s chances right now of making the playoffs.
nathaniel dawson - June 27, 2010
All I can say is that this offense has greatly underperformed.
With the addition of Branyan and some of the other guys regressing to their means (Bradley/Figgins/Saunders), scoring should improve and the team should win more. The pitching is likely to regress too, especially with Cliff gone, but I don’t see why a team projected out to be a ~85 win on true talent being unlucky and playing like a ~70 win team can’t get lucky and play like a ~90 win team.
It’s going to take a lot to get there, but I don’t see it as an impossibility. And if the team does get there, then I don’t see how you can’t look at the rest of this season being a success (which was the point all along). I’m not trying to project things out, because, frankly, I leave that to the sexy people, but I do like the addition of Branyan— both for the team and my entertainment purposes.
Wilder. - June 27, 2010
The problem is that ~85 wins made some assumptions
- Kotchman would bounce back from being a 1 WAR player to more like 2
- Bradley would bounce back from being a 1 WAR player to more like 2
- Jack Wilson’s a 2 WAR player
- close to a full season of Cliff Lee
- Griffey and C is not a complete trainwreck
and so on. Most of those are invalid assumptions. Realistically, knowing what we know now, this is more like a ~.500 rosterwith Lee, which realistically is “edge of contention, but not so much unless you get very lucky in a weak division”. Minus Lee, they just aren’t that good.
That doesn’t meet MY definition of success. It’s not abject, 2008-style fall flat on face failure, where the organization is screwed for years because of bad contracts and stupid trades, but we basically blew a season of having the best pitcher in baseball, and 2011 doesn’t look all that awesome, either, given that Wilson, Bradley and the rest of the cash for Silva are going to suck down something like ~25-30% or more of 2011 payroll.
eponymous_coward - June 27, 2010
Ugh.
I like Russell Branyan.
I FUCKING LOVE THE MUSCLE.
You’ve turned this into something I really don’t give a shit about right now.
Wilder. - June 27, 2010
Who knows
Maybe Bedard+Branyan would give more WAR than Lee and Kotchman….
ManifestDestiny - June 27, 2010
Fixed.
Maybe Bedard+Branyan would give more WAR than
Leeand Kotchman….I am going to have to go with Poochie and hope that the team gets good enough to where Lee stays.
Fin - June 27, 2010
Drayer just added another thought
A lot of this current line-up & staff is in place for next year; this gives them a chance to see if adding a power bat is enough
msb - June 27, 2010
They already know that just adding Branyan isn't enough, at least up top
Branyan’s a league average player if healthy. He’s not going to make Bradley and Figgins hit
Poochie - June 27, 2010
Speaking of which, they should just end this experiment and move Figgins to third
Poochie - June 27, 2010
Speaking of which, they should just end the Jose Lopez experiment and send him to Kansas City
lemonverbena - June 27, 2010
THE MUSCLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HOLY FUCK THE MUSCLE IS BACK!~!!!!!!!!!!!!
BigR - June 27, 2010
Like it
I don’t care if this is likely a pointless move. This makes me want to go the park and watch the Mariners more. That’s part of, perhaps most of, Z’s job. Just wish the deal were made sooner.
Any chance Branyan ends up a Type B FA if he continues his good play for the remainder of the season?
short - June 27, 2010
Give Z some credit
this move was 5% make Seattle a little more tolerable and 95% force Texas to pull the trigger on Oswalt. Because, you know, this puts Seattle in the rearview mirror….
blacknoiseNW - June 27, 2010
or, to rebut myself
it raises the price on Lee ’cuz now we are buyers, not sellers
blacknoiseNW - June 27, 2010
No we aren't.
Mariner John - June 27, 2010
nope, we aren't
blacknoiseNW - June 27, 2010
Sorry, but this trade isn't fooling anyone.
lailaihei - June 27, 2010
nope, it doesn't
blacknoiseNW - June 27, 2010
It's all a bit strange, but oh well!
Welcome back Russell.
Your mammoth sex blasts do make for a more compelling team to watch.
Big Jared - June 27, 2010
I don't dislike it!
Jeff Sullivan - June 27, 2010
Now Russ can keep giving lessons!
Jeff Sullivan - June 27, 2010
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Jeff Sullivan - June 27, 2010
See Felix? Smash the cups, don't eat them
Matthew - June 27, 2010
But... But...
THEY ALWAYS GET BETTER!!!
seattlecougar - June 27, 2010
Does this mean he's going to be twice as good now?
Fuckmikereilly - June 27, 2010
Juan Diaz: 2015 MVP
seattlecougar - June 27, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.