PDA

View Full Version : Tribe trades Branyan after loss...



_Sir_Charles_
06-27-2010, 12:01 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100627&content_id=11637586&vkey=news_cle&fext=.jsp&c_id=cle


Branyan was informed after Saturday's loss to the Reds that he has been traded to his old club. The Indians will receive two Minor Leaguers, Triple-A center fielder Ezequiel Carrera and high Class A shortstop Juan Diaz. They will also either pay the remainder of Branyan's $2 million contract or send the Mariners a player to be named later.

LaPorta called up to fill his spot.

jojo
06-27-2010, 12:19 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100627&content_id=11637586&vkey=news_cle&fext=.jsp&c_id=cle



LaPorta called up to fill his spot.

That will teach him for going on a 7 game hit streak!

BCubb2003
06-27-2010, 12:27 PM
They must have taken that botched pick-off play hard.

Big Klu
06-27-2010, 12:33 PM
Branyan was informed after Saturday's loss to the Reds that he has been traded to his old club.

That really narrows it down. ;)

Joseph
06-27-2010, 12:41 PM
That really narrows it down. ;)

My thoughts exactly, I was like 'which old club, the Reds?'

Big Klu
06-27-2010, 12:58 PM
My thoughts exactly, I was like 'which old club, the Reds?'

Reds, Brewers, Rays, Padres, Phillies, Cardinals, Mariners...hey, maybe the Tribe traded him to themselves!

kaldaniels
06-27-2010, 02:49 PM
Bruce Dreinnen (sp?) loves this move...remember him mocking Russell's swing?

RedEye
06-27-2010, 03:08 PM
I'm thoroughly confused by this move. So far, the new M's regime has seemed really smart to me--but Z is preaching all intangibles and "knowing how to win" on this move. That's fine. But it is bizarre that the M's are 14 games out of first and then trade two semi-promising bats for a guy they didn't like enough a few months ago to re-sign. I don't get it.

jojo
06-27-2010, 03:24 PM
I'm thoroughly confused by this move. So far, the new M's regime has seemed really smart to me--but Z is preaching all intangibles and "knowing how to win" on this move. That's fine. But it is bizarre that the M's are 14 games out of first and then trade two semi-promising bats for a guy they didn't like enough a few months ago to re-sign. I don't get it.

The Ms tried to resign Branyan but their departure was kind of like the parting of jilted lovers where Branyan wanted a multiyear deal and the Ms, who correctly read the market, weren't going to cross the line they had drawn in the sand.

The minor leaguers the Ms gave up are fringy guys whose ceiling seem to be the 25th man everyone complains about.

This is mostly about trying to squirt some sheen on the brand for the rest of the year since the Ms have been playing better lately (they're actually playing .500 ball over the last 34 games). Then there is always the hope that miracles actually do happen since Bedard is getting close and the regulars like Figgins, Lopez and Bradley can't keep under performing as dramatically as their early season starts.

RedEye
06-27-2010, 03:34 PM
The Ms tried to resign Branyan but their departure was kind of like the parting of jilted lovers where Branyan wanted a multiyear deal and the Ms, who correctly read the market, weren't going to cross the line they had drawn in the sand.

The minor leaguers the Ms gave up are fringy guys whose ceiling seem to be the 25th man everyone complains about.

This is mostly about trying to squirt some sheen on the brand for the rest of the year since the Ms have been playing better lately (they're actually playing .500 ball over the last 34 games). Then there is always the hope that miracles actually do happen since Bedard is getting close and the regulars like Figgins, Lopez and Bradley can't keep under performing as dramatically as their early season starts.

Makes sense, especially if the minor leaguers are nothing special. Thanks for the clarification. So I take it you are, like many M's fans, a supporter of the Z regime?

jojo
06-27-2010, 03:54 PM
Makes sense, especially if the minor leaguers are nothing special. Thanks for the clarification. So I take it you are, like many M's fans, a supporter of the Z regime?

I generally think he/they are doing a good job and the Ms are in better position to be consistently good in the years to come.

I think he's got to deal with some flaky constraints imposed by ownership (see Jr) but so does everyone else. I hated the Sweeney decision because it seemed more a nod to the clubhouse than talent and JR/Sweeney really was like gas on fire for the early issues with roster flexibility/underperforming.

But there will never be a FO that completely aligns with everyone, every front office will have blind spots that can be legitimately criticized by someone, and there's probably reasons for some of their decisions that we'll never know, but ya, overall, the Ms are better positioned for the future under Z than they were under Bavasi.

TheNext44
06-27-2010, 04:59 PM
I generally think he/they are doing a good job and the Ms are in better position to be consistently good in the years to come.

I think he's got to deal with some flaky constraints imposed by ownership (see Jr) but so does everyone else. I hated the Sweeney decision because it seemed more a nod to the clubhouse than talent and JR/Sweeney really was like gas on fire for the early issues with roster flexibility/underperforming.

But there will never be a FO that completely aligns with everyone, every front office will have blind spots that can be legitimately criticized by someone, and there's probably reasons for some of their decisions that we'll never know, but ya, overall, the Ms are better positioned for the future under Z than they were under Bavasi.

The Sweeney and Jr. signings made even less sense with the Bradley/Silva trade. Why focus on clubhouse with those guys, then bring in one of the worst clubhouse guys in the league?

If you think clubhouse is so important that you bring in declining bats like Sweeney and Jr., then it makes no sense to trade for Bradley.

jojo
06-27-2010, 05:09 PM
The Sweeney and Jr. signings made even less sense with the Bradley/Silva trade. Why focus on clubhouse with those guys, then bring in one of the worst clubhouse guys in the league?

If you think clubhouse is so important that you bring in declining bats like Sweeney and Jr., then it makes no sense to trade for Bradley.

Ya, it was puzzling even ignoring Bradley's persona. It clearly wasn't smart to count on Bradley being an everyday leftfielder so the solution is to platoon DH with two guys who are even less desirable in left?

Jr was mostly about marketing which is disappointing but whatever. Maybe Sweeney was supposed to be Bradley's babysitter? Who knows?

At least Sweeney had a hot stretch in May.

Sea Ray
06-27-2010, 07:41 PM
I guess it all comes down to your assessment that these two minor leaguers are going to be fringe major leaguers. Shoo looked awfully good today and has been a very good player the Tribe. Did the Ms figure him as a 25th guy too?

Branyan cannot do enough to justify this trade. The Ms need to quit trading young talent for aging veterans and get started acquiring young guys and they might as well start with Cliff Lee. If they hang onto him past the trade deadline then they've made another bad move. And if they do trade him them what's the point of acquiring Branyan?

I've read reviews where these are not fringe minor league guys and as I look at their numbers and ages I'd gladly take my chances if all it cost me was 3 mos of Branyan.

jojo
06-27-2010, 08:15 PM
I guess it all comes down to your assessment that these two minor leaguers are going to be fringe major leaguers. Shoo looked awfully good today and has been a very good player the Tribe. Did the Ms figure him as a 25th guy too?

Branyan cannot do enough to justify this trade. The Ms need to quit trading young talent for aging veterans and get started acquiring young guys and they might as well start with Cliff Lee. If they hang onto him past the trade deadline then they've made another bad move. And if they do trade him them what's the point of acquiring Branyan?

I've read reviews where these are not fringe minor league guys and as I look at their numbers and ages I'd gladly take my chances if all it cost me was 3 mos of Branyan.

There was no reason for the MS to think Choo's ceiling was as a 25th man at best. I'm not sure why you'd draw that comparison.

TheNext44
06-27-2010, 08:47 PM
There was no reason for the MS to think Choo's ceiling was as a 25th man at best. I'm not sure why you'd draw that comparison.

Exactly.

Choo was traded for a former top draft pick who already had been an above average hitter for three full seasons in majors and who was OPSing .880 at the time of the trade. Choo was a top prospect with a high ceiling at the time. It basically was trading a future above average hitter for a present above average hitter. No one thought Choo would become anything less than a solid everyday player.

Sea Ray
06-27-2010, 09:31 PM
There was no reason for the MS to think Choo's ceiling was as a 25th man at best. I'm not sure why you'd draw that comparison.

I'm not the only one who draws the comparison:

http://bringingbackboudreau.blogspot.com/2010/06/indians-trade-branyan-for-two-mariners.html

This trade for Branyan seems very much like the trade for Ben Broussard 4 yrs ago

TheNext44
06-27-2010, 10:07 PM
I'm not the only one who draws the comparison:

http://bringingbackboudreau.blogspot.com/2010/06/indians-trade-branyan-for-two-mariners.html

This trade for Branyan seems very much like the trade for Ben Broussard 4 yrs ago

From an Indians Fan blog. If you've been to some Reds Fan blogs, you'll understand how reliable they are. I had a hard time not laughing at some of the absurd statements made by this blogger.

I could find ten other reports from actual journalists that completely disagree with this assessment.

But more importantly, how does this Branyon trade compare to the Choo/Broussard trade?

Besides the two teams involved, I can't see a single similarity.

Wheelhouse
06-27-2010, 11:13 PM
Whew. Hideous player. Why do teams keep drinking the kool aid?

Will M
06-28-2010, 12:20 AM
From an Indians Fan blog. If you've been to some Reds Fan blogs, you'll understand how reliable they are. I had a hard time not laughing at some of the absurd statements made by this blogger.

I could find ten other reports from actual journalists that completely disagree with this assessment.

But more importantly, how does this Branyon trade compare to the Choo/Broussard trade?

Besides the two teams involved, I can't see a single similarity.

I just found out that the Reds traded Broussard to the Indians for Branyan. Then a few years later the Indians dealt Broussard to the Ms for Choo.
He is quite a player. What a terrible deal the Ms made. Imagine if we has been the ones to trade Broussard for Choo.

Will M
06-28-2010, 12:23 AM
Whew. Hideous player. Why do teams keep drinking the kool aid?

OPS+ 140, 128 & 124 the last 3 years. Seems a perfectly servicable guy for 1B/DH.

Sea Ray
06-28-2010, 12:25 AM
From an Indians Fan blog. If you've been to some Reds Fan blogs, you'll understand how reliable they are. I had a hard time not laughing at some of the absurd statements made by this blogger.

I could find ten other reports from actual journalists that completely disagree with this assessment.

But more importantly, how does this Branyon trade compare to the Choo/Broussard trade?

Besides the two teams involved, I can't see a single similarity.

You can't see any other similarity?

1) M's get 1B for added offense in mid season trade

2) M's trade OF prospect

3) Prospect is a 23 yr old playing in AAA

4) 1B was left handed

Differences make the trade all the more puzzling

1) July 26, 2006 the M's were 3 games out of first

2) M's this time included a second prospect, a 21 yr old SS

Yep, how could anyone else see a similarity???

TheNext44
06-28-2010, 01:03 AM
You can't see any other similarity?

1) M's get 1B for added offense in mid season trade

2) M's trade OF prospect

3) Prospect is a 23 yr old playing in AAA

4) 1B was left handed

Differences make the trade all the more puzzling

1) July 26, 2006 the M's were 3 games out of first

2) M's this time included a second prospect, a 21 yr old SS

Yep, how could anyone else see a similarity???

So I guess the trade of Josh Hamilton for Edinson Volquez is the same as the trade of Robert Manuel for Wlad Balentein.

Both were a pitcher traded for an outfielder.

In both Mariner/Indian trades, the players were all men born in the 20th century. That fact is about about as meaningful as the others you mentioned.

The Choo/Broussard trade was a trade of good players both of whom could have an impact on each team.

The Branyon trade was dumping an aging DH for C or less prospects. A 25th man for a possible 25th man, and then minor league filler thrown in.

jojo
06-28-2010, 09:10 AM
You can't see any other similarity?

1) M's get 1B for added offense in mid season trade

2) M's trade OF prospect

3) Prospect is a 23 yr old playing in AAA

4) 1B was left handed

Differences make the trade all the more puzzling

1) July 26, 2006 the M's were 3 games out of first

2) M's this time included a second prospect, a 21 yr old SS

Yep, how could anyone else see a similarity???

I thought we we're arguing upside though-in other words, it's the devil in the details that makes the comparison fall flat.

Sea Ray
06-28-2010, 10:22 AM
So I guess the trade of Josh Hamilton for Edinson Volquez is the same as the trade of Robert Manuel for Wlad Balentein.

Both were a pitcher traded for an outfielder.

In both Mariner/Indian trades, the players were all men born in the 20th century. That fact is about about as meaningful as the others you mentioned.

The Choo/Broussard trade was a trade of good players both of whom could have an impact on each team.

The Branyon trade was dumping an aging DH for C or less prospects. A 25th man for a possible 25th man, and then minor league filler thrown in.


I would argue Branyan is now playing as well as Broussard ever did.

You asked for the similarities and I gave them.

The main difference is how much you value the prospects given away by Seattle, as I stated earlier. Other than that the deal is quite similar. I agree Choo was a higher rated propect than either of these in the M's deal. But prospects can be a tough thing to project. Now the M's are 15 games back and have three teams to jump. My question remains:

Why trade any prospects for veterans at this point? Why aren't they stockpiling prospects? Why take the chance that these prospects will develop into contributing major leaguers?

I would counter that if one of them turns into Chris Heisey then the deal was stupid on Seattle's part

REDREAD
06-28-2010, 12:26 PM
This trade kind of makes sense though.

Seattle wanted Branyan. They trade two minor leaguers that they view as marginal and get the Tribe to pick up the rest of Branyan's salary (around 2 million, IIRC).

So from Seattle's point of view, they sell two marginal minor leaguers for 2 million. From Cleveland's point of view, they make room for a prospect to get playing time and get 2 more young players.

TheNext44
06-28-2010, 12:32 PM
Why trade any prospects for veterans at this point? Why aren't they stockpiling prospects? Why take the chance that these prospects will develop into contributing major leaguers?

I would counter that if one of them turns into Chris Heisey then the deal was stupid on Seattle's part

Don't get me wrong, I think this deal is dumb on Seattle's part no matter what happens to the guys they traded away. I'm as baffled as anyone as to why they did it. I'm sure JoJo will have more insight into the reasoning behind it, since he follows the team more closely.

But I just don't see it being one that the Mariners regret like they do the Choo trade.

And my apology for sounding too harsh in my other replies. I was typing them as as I was watching the Yankeee come back and best the Dodgers on Sunday night baseball. I think i let that emotion spill into my reply to you. Sorry.

bucksfan2
06-28-2010, 12:47 PM
The Ms tried to resign Branyan but their departure was kind of like the parting of jilted lovers where Branyan wanted a multiyear deal and the Ms, who correctly read the market, weren't going to cross the line they had drawn in the sand.

The minor leaguers the Ms gave up are fringy guys whose ceiling seem to be the 25th man everyone complains about.

This is mostly about trying to squirt some sheen on the brand for the rest of the year since the Ms have been playing better lately (they're actually playing .500 ball over the last 34 games). Then there is always the hope that miracles actually do happen since Bedard is getting close and the regulars like Figgins, Lopez and Bradley can't keep under performing as dramatically as their early season starts.

Kinda curious to this statement. How did the M's correctly read the market? They wanted the guy back, reminisced about the offense they were missing, and ultimately went out and traded a few prospects to get the guy back.

To me it sounds as if the M's miss read the market, missed out on the guy they wanted, and ended up paying for him with prospects.

mth123
06-28-2010, 12:54 PM
Kinda curious to this statement. How did the M's correctly read the market? They wanted the guy back, reminisced about the offense they were missing, and ultimately went out and traded a few prospects to get the guy back.

To me it sounds as if the M's miss read the market, missed out on the guy they wanted, and ended up paying for him with prospects.

Yup and the lack of Branyan's power was probably was a big factor in dealing for Milton Bradley. Seems like it cost them quite a bit to pass on Branyan for a few dollars.

TheNext44
06-28-2010, 01:02 PM
Kinda curious to this statement. How did the M's correctly read the market? They wanted the guy back, reminisced about the offense they were missing, and ultimately went out and traded a few prospects to get the guy back.

To me it sounds as if the M's miss read the market, missed out on the guy they wanted, and ended up paying for him with prospects.

Technically, the Mariners read the market right since no other team offered Branyon a multi year deal. He ended up signing with the Indians for about what the Mariners were offering.

But this trade does reveal that they did miss him more than they thought they would.

jojo
06-28-2010, 01:07 PM
How did the M's correctly read the market?

Branyan was demanding a mutli-year deal in the same market where Adam LaRoche ended up getting a 1 yr/$6M deal and he basically wouldn't come down with the Ms. Brantley didn't get one. Basically he settled for a 1 year $2.5M deal if you add the buy out to his 2010 salary. By the time Branyan signed (Feb 24th-another signal that Branyan's market wasn't misread by the Ms), the Ms had already done what they were going to do at first/DH for better or for worse...

The Ms clearly wanted Branyan back but not at the price he demanded during their negotiations. Concerning prospects? The Ms farm system didn't take a hit.

jojo
06-28-2010, 01:12 PM
Yup and the lack of Branyan's power was probably was a big factor in dealing for Milton Bradley. Seems like it cost them quite a bit to pass on Branyan for a few dollars.

Silva and the need to solidify LF were the biggest drivers in the Bradley trade-both issues separate from an unwillingness to pay Branyan rates that were out of whack.

Scrap Irony
06-28-2010, 01:37 PM
More importantly than the Branyan deal itself is what it may represent to Seattle. I think the M's are trying to re-tool on the fly, recognizing that defense isn't the end-all, be-all for teams trying to contend. (Defense, too, it seems, slumps from year to year.) The cost is negligible, but the fact that their new GM felt the need to re-tool so soon after beginning a new paradigm has to be troubling to those that fully supported his ideas.

3B Jose Lopez has been a disappointment, as have C Johnson, 1B Kotchman, and others. Offensively, they've got Ichiro and little else. (Bradley and Figgins have really, really struggled.) They just can't hit enough to support great gloves.

Does anyone know how much rope Seattle owners are giving the front office? They can't be happy to have dealt for win-now players like Lee, Bradley, and Figgins and be so bad.

bucksfan2
06-28-2010, 01:41 PM
Branyan was demanding a mutli-year deal in the same market where Adam LaRoche ended up getting a 1 yr/$6M deal and he basically wouldn't come down with the Ms. Brantley didn't get one. Basically he settled for a 1 year $2.5M deal if you add the buy out to his 2010 salary. By the time Branyan signed (Feb 24th-another signal that Branyan's market wasn't misread by the Ms), the Ms had already done what they were going to do at first/DH for better or for worse...

The Ms clearly wanted Branyan back but not at the price he demanded during their negotiations. Concerning prospects? The Ms farm system didn't take a hit.

But they obviously didn't get the guy they wanted. They waited until almost midway through a miserable season to trade for a guy they wanted in the first place. It wasn't any secret that the M's miscalculated the amount of offense they had and how much they needed. They didn't replace his bat and it showed as the M's played the 1st half of the season as one of the worst teams in baseball.

If you want to talk about playing the market right its what Jocketty did with Gomes. It isn't what the M's did with Braynon. If you play the market right you get the guy you wanted at your price, not letting him sign with another team.

jojo
06-28-2010, 01:45 PM
More importantly than the Branyan deal itself is what it may represent to Seattle. I think the M's are trying to re-tool on the fly, recognizing that defense isn't the end-all, be-all for teams trying to contend. (Defense, too, it seems, slumps from year to year.) The cost is negligible, but the fact that their new GM felt the need to re-tool so soon after beginning a new paradigm has to be troubling to those that fully supported his ideas.

I don't think the Branyan trade signals anything except that Carp doesn't have a future at first.

The Ms thought Branyan fit their philosophy last year. Why would reacquiring him signal that they're abandoning anything?

BTW, Figgins, Bradley and Lopez haven't severely under performed offensively because the Ms value defense...

One would have to assume Z's FO has a lot of rope. Ms ownership tolerated Bavasi almost to infinity and the current FO is actually competent.

jojo
06-28-2010, 02:02 PM
But they obviously didn't get the guy they wanted. They waited until almost midway through a miserable season to trade for a guy they wanted in the first place.

So? It's the Bavasi way to fall in love with one guy and to destroy the market in an effort to satisfy cupid. Competent FO's don't do it that way. Branyan, played chicken and he lost as he should have. The Ms clearly like Branyan and they got him back for really something similar to what they were willing to pay in the first place.


It wasn't any secret that the M's miscalculated the amount of offense they had and how much they needed. They didn't replace his bat and it showed as the M's played the 1st half of the season as one of the worst teams in baseball.

Seriously, who predicted that Figgins, Bradley, Lopez, and Kotchman were going start off hitting worse than Corky Miller's fat, near-sighted little brother? Considering Lee started off hurt, Wilson got hurt, Jr was done before ST and the miserable offensive starts by several key players who are clearly better true-talent bats, everything that could've went wrong for the Ms actually did.

Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes, you're the bug. The way the Ms season has unfolded is hardly a referendum on valuing pitching, defense and on-base skills.

Criticize Z for the thin margin or error and the lack of flexibility on the roster (though Jr probably was probably something ownership pushed more than Z thought was brilliant) but lets not rewrite history.


If you want to talk about playing the market right its what Jocketty did with Gomes. It isn't what the M's did with Braynon. If you play the market right you get the guy you wanted at your price, not letting him sign with another team.

Again, Branyan had some say in the issue and he largely wasn't signed by the Ms because he was demanding a price that wasn't in line with the Ms' price or reason for that matter.

lollipopcurve
06-28-2010, 02:10 PM
Seriously, who predicted that Figgins, Bradley, Lopez, and Kotchman were going start off hitting worse than Corky Miller's fat, near-sighted little brother? Considering Lee started off hurt, Wilson got hurt, Jr was done before ST and the miserable offensive starts by several key players who are clearly better true-talent bats, everything that could've went wrong for the Ms actually did.

He may have misread a couple things, I don't know. The transition to Safeco may require an adjustment period. In some cases, hitters may not recover. Secondly, they had Figgins and Lopez move to new positions. If they were in contend-now mode, which they clearly were, they were banking on some key players finding a comfort zone right away in uncomfortable circumstances. Didn't happen, and now they're sort of back to square one, with Cliff Lee hitting the highway.

Sea Ray
06-28-2010, 02:47 PM
I think they missed on key offensive positions. All teams need a lot of offense from three positions: LF, 1B and DH. The M's banked on Bradley, Kotchman and Jr to provide that. Such a strategy was bound to fall flat. They'd have been much better off to pursue Vlad.