Lookout Landing: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Staturday: Does Jason Giambi help the A's? Bar-right-arrows



Final Thoughts

So I've had a few hours to collect everything going through my head. Now that I look back on it, I probably got a little too excited, but that's because A) it was funny timing, since I was just writing about Branyan last night, and B) Branyan's a guy I've wanted on this team for the last half-decade. It's not a big splash. It's barely even dipping a toe in the water. It's a minor move made by a bad team, a move to bring in a guy who likely won't be with the team the next time it's good. He's just a temporary placeholder, and in the long run it probably wouldn't make much of a difference if we went with Branyan or stuck with Bryan LaflippinHair. Our first baseman (or DH, or bench bat, or whatever Branyan ends up being) in 2009 will, I imagine, have little to do with the long-term success of the franchise.

But aside from the fact that Branyan'll make 2009 more enjoyable (last year he had half as many 420+ foot homers as the Seattle Mariners in 1/40th the plate appearances), what I find so encouraging is the thought process behind the move. Branyan's unlikely to be a league-average player, but he could easily be a ~league-average 1B or DH for pennies. How much did Bavasi blow through trying to find the same sort of guy? He is somewhere around the pinnacle of freely available talent, and just being able to identify that kind of player and then all but promise him a regular job...I know this is kind of like the captain of the Titanic saying "maybe next time we go a little more south" but it remains something to celebrate, because it's a giant step forward. Our new front office is aware of cheaper alternatives to expensive solutions. The old one wasn't. While we're certainly not pioneers in that regard, it's still a good, good sign. Even if this move in particular doesn't make much of a long-lasting impact, the idea behind it will help us down the road, when we're once again ready to compete.

It's easy to look at this, then look at the Wilkerson signing a year ago, and ask "what's the difference? Why is this any more encouraging than that?" I asked myself those very questions earlier this afternoon. But I think there are a few significant distinctions that show that Zduriencik is far more willing to trust this sort of player than Bavasi ever was. For one thing, Branyan was Zduriencik's first real move. Bavasi, meanwhile, didn't sign Wilkerson until the end up January, when he had a hole in the outfield and there was barely anyone left. For another thing, Branyan's a 1B/DH type, positions at which Bavasi insisted on having established veterans with track records; Wilkerson was just a corner OF, and the front office knew Wlad was on the way. And then there's the matter of role - while Wilkerson was meant to offer a little support, Branyan's being talked about like the team wants him to be one of its primary run producers.

I don't know that I'm explaining myself very well. I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm seeing two different ideas behind two different moves made by two different GMs.

Bavasi, Wilkerson: We need a right fielder. There's not much left. We'll settle.

Zduriencik, Branyan: This guy's cheap, he's effective, he meets a need, and he offers a lot of flexibility with minimal commitment.

So while the whole Wilkerson thing was borne of special circumstance, the idea behind the Branyan move tells us something about Zduriencik and his operating philosophies. More specifically, it tells us something good about them.

(Not to mention that, at the timing of signing, Branyan's the better player of the two.)

Since Zduriencik and the rest of his crew were first brought in, I've had blind faith in them to steer this team in the right direction. Now - for the first time, really - that faith is no longer blind, because they've given me a reason to believe in their competence. There've been a bushel of changes with respect to team personnel, but this is the first tangible sign of a change in philosophy, and that's exciting. So Branyan might bust. He's got old player skills and he turns 33 in a few weeks. Who cares? That's not what matters here. The entire Bavasi era was a never-ending sequence of mistakes, where even the good things came from bad thought processes. This is the first Major League move of the Zduriencik era, and the thought process is good. Real good. Maybe down the road it'll stand out as a fluke, but I don't see any reason to believe that. This looks more like a solid first step.

Who wouldn't be excited?

0 recs | Comment 37 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Well put.

Other teams in rebuild mode aren’t so lucky. For example, seek out a Branyan or trade for Mike Jacobs?

by RATW on Dec 3, 2008 9:00 PM PST   0 recs

Holy fucking Jesus I like that trade

(I assume Motte and/or Perez is not part of it)

Furcal

by JI on Dec 3, 2008 9:21 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

While this makes sense

because Khalil is sooooo overrated, this is disturbing:

“San Diego is in the midst of trying to drop its payroll down into the $40 million range.”

As much of a trainwreck 2008 has been for all things Seattle, San Diego makes the Emerald City look like a big-league powerhouse.

by lemonverbena on Dec 4, 2008 6:52 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

The funk blast will live on

On the downside, Brad Nelson seems less likely now.

by JLC on Dec 3, 2008 9:03 PM PST   0 recs

Why?

We have two running sores in the lineup, 1B and DH, of which we’ve half-filled one of them. We also have no reserves who can hit worth squat. Brad Nelson still makes a whole heap of sense.

by The Ancient Mariner on Dec 4, 2008 7:59 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Jeff Clement will fill that role since I think it's unlikely he'll be a regular catcher

But yeah, Brad Nelson is still possible, but I think it’s less likely that we trade for him (or for a hitter of his type) if teams are demanding a lot in return. That, of course, begs the question as to what is our long term solution for first base. Branyan is a great stopgap, but not a player to look forward to in the future.

by JLC on Dec 4, 2008 1:52 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

If you want a real comparision

Compare what went into signing Russell Branyan to what went into signing Carl Everett.

“Today we achieved one of our off-season goals,” Bavasi said. “Carl Everett is a clutch-hitting run producer with power. As a switch-hitter, he provides our lineup with added versatility. Carl is a winner, most recently as a member of the 2005 World Series Champion Chicago White Sox. His experience and intensity will be welcome additions to our clubhouse.”

This and about $4 Million.

by ThundaPC on Dec 3, 2008 9:17 PM PST   0 recs

Why must you rub salt in our wounds in this glorious hour?

Every day I hear about Seattle sports' failures. Every night I fall asleep to the sound of my own tears.

by Benne on Dec 3, 2008 9:26 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Jeff might find this interesting

Branyan was traded on 6/7/02 from Cleveland to Cincinnati for none other than Ben Broussard.

by Scrupio on Dec 3, 2008 10:58 PM PST   0 recs

We've grown fond of him.

But on behalf of the Shapiro Cult I’d like to extend a slap on the back to Seattle fans. It’s cool isn’t it? Wait until he’s in the booth during a game and chastises the TV guy for putting too much emphasis on RBI.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 4, 2008 8:28 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Wait a minute.

Branyan’s unlikely to be a league-average player, but he could easily be a ~league-average 1B or DH for pennies.

So the average AL DH/1B is a below-average player overall in the AL? That seems to be what you’re saying, if he easily could be ~ an average 1B/DH, but unlikely to be an average player.

I could see how this would be possible (the offensive value of the average AL DH/1B doesn’t offset the fact that they don’t add enough defensive value), but if so, this explains why certain GMs overpay for “proven veteran sluggers”- they don’t understand defensive value.

by eponymous_coward on Dec 5, 2008 11:57 AM PST   0 recs

"So the average AL DH/1B is a below-average player overall in the AL?"

Yeah. Same reason an average shortstop is an above-average baseball player.

by Teej on Dec 5, 2008 1:15 PM PST   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

By reading a game thread of your own volition you agree to accept all liability for any and all damage done to your delicate sensibilities.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
LL Off-Topic/Commenting Guidelines

Recent FanPosts

Small
WTF? "Smoltz on verge of deal with Red Sox"?
Lightsabreia4_small
Bargains ----> Team that doesn't deserve bargains
Matrix_by_cledis_small
Ok let's say...
610x_small
Interesting LD/BABIP article at Fangraphs
610x_small
OTFPOTD-01/07/09
Small
Is this the end of Shelley Duncan?
Small
Pavano --> Tribe
Small
What's so special about catchers?
Nibbler02_small
Giambi---> A's
Small
OTDOD - 1-6-9 Interesting Reading Edition

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Sexy People

Hmssurprise_small Graham

Small Matthew

Small Jeff

ad

Site Meter