Maybe :- )
.
=== Sandy on Branyan ===
I/O:
CRUNCH: Your intuition may be even more bulls-eye than you realize, San-Man...
On Geoff Baker Live, somebody was busting Geoffy's chops about being too tough on Milton Bradley (and Geoff hadn't been, but that's another story).
Baker laughed about this, saying that Bradley is "intelligent enough" to know that his story was ironic, and "Bradley is 31, 32 now, a grown man, not a 5-year old" and isn't going to react like, quote, Russell Branyan about every perceived slight or annoyance.
...............
Whereupon, BING, the kewpie light went off as to everything Branyan said about the contract situation -- and the fact that Branyan has bounced from one part-time job to another to another .
True, Zduriencik brought Branyan in after having him in Milwaukee -- because he knew Branyan could hit in full time play. Did everybody know this? :- ) And Zduriencik was the man so urgent about his new make-or-break re-tooling year that Z decided he would tolerate Branyan for one, transition, year?
...............
I don't know -- maybe Branyan was only rude to Baker personally, and this is what Baker was referring to, above. But IFF the above was the accurate characterization, and Branyan is the one guy in the clubhouse who refuses to act like an adult, well, professionalism is an absolute in Seattle.
It becomes that much more amazing that the rookie manager Wakamatsu was able to get 24 other players to buy in, if Branyan was all about himself in 2009.
It also wouldn't help, with 25 men together in a small room for 12 hours a day x 8 months, if the most childish, irrational man in the room was by far the biggest and strongest man, also.
...............
SSI was well-and-truly brain-fried as to why the 600-run Mariners wouldn't want Russell Branyan back, when the man earns $100,000 per ballgame with his bat. We surmised, nothing else it could be, than that they hate his medical reports.
But why, then, a lowball offer? ... maybe to alienate him while covering their backside with the clubhouse.
There comes a point when no matter how talented a man is, if you can't deal with him you sidestep him. Elijah Dukes, anybody? It's quite possible, looking at the panorama of Branyan's career, that his 140 OPS+ is simply unusable.
.
=== 1B Situation ===
Baker also reports that 12 pitchers is an absolute with the Lee suspension... suggestion comes up, how about Tui as emergency 1B while Garko's in AAA for a week or two.
It's logical that he could, but *has* he ever? That matters to Wok, I think :- )
Lopez can play 1B but according to Drayer, loathes doing so... but, still, I suppose that's your plan, if Kotchman's not playing, Lopez 1B Tui 3B...
As much as I like creative solutions, not sure I've seen a roster that has only 5 men with infielders' mitts, even for a week or two.
Sweeney, however, does play a little 1B. He even played there for 5 games in 2009 for the Mariners. So I suppose that enables the Garko-delay-for-a-week...
Cheers,
Dr D
Branyan's market died after the Ms traded for Kotchman. They could have just released Kotchman if they still wanted Branyan.
Z wanted Kotchman. He probably ended up paying him more than the other 14 teams were willing to. Thats pretty much all there is to it.
With or without the Lee suspension the M's will soon go to a 12 man staff....if they don't open with one. So speculation about 14 glove/bats should look at short term numbers only.
Versatility still counts. Which is why Willie Bloomquist stays in the league.
Tui seems to be versatile. And the M's are certainly playing him that way.
Tui has played himself into the lineup on a semi-regular basis. Heck..he's getting semi-regular SS innings right now in ST. I don't believe that is a "tryout." It is a warmup. He will see some SS time...probably some 2B time, 3B time (considerable) and even some left field time. Heck, he might see some 1B time...although we seem to have a bumper crop of guys who can play that position. OK...not really a "bumper" crop...but a bunch of guys can play over there. (I would still rather see Carp than any of them, other than Sweeney)
Sweeney is a lock to stay. One of Garko and Kotchman is not making the team...and may be headed elsewhere other than Tacoma. Even if Sweeney's back explodes, then the fall back is Carp, and that is only a bit worse than Kotchman/Garko (well..I would argue no worse than Kotchman and, in fact, considerably better). But Sweeney offers way too much upside bat to let slip to another team. And Lopez can play 1st if needed. With Lopez around and assuming Sweeney is kept (PLEEEEEZE) then Kotchman or Garko goes bye bye.
Byrnes is in. He'll play vs. lefties. That puts Bradley at DH vs. lefties Bradley plays left vs. righties and Junior DH's. With such a bench is looks like Tui might get some OF time, even. Has anybody seen him play there? I would love to see Langerhans kept...I don't see how that happens.
If we don't see some Figgins time at 3B in the next 5 days or so...then I think the 2B move is no longer "experimental" (if that label hasn't been dropped already).
And I stand by my earlier predictions. Mid-May is the outside for the first Bradley implosion.
Keith
But Kotchman *does* seem to be in the Zduriencik style. Yeah.
Technically true, Champ, that Z could have released Kotchman, but that's not exactly the way to do business if you're trying to build a class org - to sign a guy to a $4m deal, and release him 2 weeks later :- )
In roto, you or I would do that ... IRL Zduriencik would get laughed out of baseball for a stunt like that ... not least by his boss, Howard Lincoln. Imagine that conversation :- )
Your stock-analyst rating is up with a bullet, man.
They didn't sign Kotchman until a good deal after Branyan's market crashed.
There was no need to offer Kotchman an inflated contract with LaRoche only getting $4mil on one-year. It was clear Branyan would get less.
I hadn't considered it before ... and I'm the guy who is supposed to be looking at the "head" situations by instinct ... but I think back and consider that of ALL the Mariner players, Washburn was the one (prior to Z) that was considered a malcontent. Mind you - I personally defended some of his public quotes -- noting fans were (IMO) a bit too quick to describe him as throwing Joh under the bus.
In retrospect, however, what does Z want? HUNGER!!! Washburn was contemplating retirement in '09. While he may have performed well in 2009 ... that's certainly not the random thought you want for your roster guys if you're pushing hunger as mandatory.
Branyan WANTED a full-time shot at 1B ... he got it ... and his response was -- "So, give me TWO years."
I'm thinking you're dead-on, Doc. I'm thinking Branyan and Wash are both victims of the zero-tolerance policy for Veteran Entitlement. And this is why Z is a GM and we're posting random thoughts from Mom's basement.
CLEARLY, Mike Sweeney is not suffering from the scourge of V.E.
But --- just to add some new point to the discussion. "What if" the Fig/Lop Flip-Flop "experiment" is actually a wonderfully subtle way to crack the whip in regards to their defensive efforts WHERE THEY WERE? I mean, if on March 30th, the club goes ... "We really appreciate your effort, guys ... and we might need you to fill in for each other at some point in the year ... but, for 2010, Lopey, you're our 2B, and Figgy, you're our 3B."
What kind of "Joy" will result in getting back to the position you're "comfortable" with? And how much harder (than normal) are you going to work to STAY there?
While I think Z knows all the stats --- I think he's a parsec ahead of the masses in appreciating that players are NOT Strat-O-Matic cards -- (to quote Charlton Heston) ... THEY'RE PEOPLE.
Man, I hope you're right on the position switch.
I think the Branyan/Washburn part is a bit overanalyzing though. All GMs and agents have to negotiate.