I started keeping an eye on Carerra last year when he was putting up nice numbers in AA.  But it turned out that most of the OBP came from a very high BABIP. 
I still kept following him the VWL.  Yes, it's the VWL, but the things that were interesting (high BA, excellent BB:K ratio) went away.  AAA looks more like the VWL line than the AA line.
The A+ line that was intriguing was 12 triples and 46 walks.  The triples have dried up and the walks are just OK (.339 OBP for a guy who's supposed to be a table-setter).
I don't think they saw Carerra in the long-term plan, and they do see Saunders and Ackley in it. And I think they believe either could fill in at CF if they have to.
They don't see Carp in their plans, and they know they can get Branyan for a reasonable price to fill a spot they desparately need to fill.
I don't have a problem with the deal.

If Branyan is only for this year then this is stupid. 
But Branyan is better than Broussard.  By like head and shoulders.  And Zeke is worse than Choo and Cab.
 
Might as well say "No one EVER trade for an Ace at the deadline, because it never works out!!!!1121!!!"
 
Except that sometimes it does work out.
 
Branyan was a 125 OPS+ guy last year, and he is this year.  Will he be next year?  If moderately healthy, probably.  How about the year after?  I don't care, because the hope is we won't NEED him in 2012.  A young guy will be ready.
 
But Carp is not that guy, and Kotchman is not that guy, and Nelson is not that guy, and Everidge is not that guy.
 
Nobody who is in AA or AAA is that guy (unless Peguero somehow recaptures his first month, I suppose).  Maybe you believe Mike Wilson SHOULD be that guy, and they should just give him a 1B glove and let him play.
 
Fine.  If Mike Wilson is NOT that guy and we still have no power next year, will Jack Z be back in 2012?
 
This isn't really about solving a problem for this year, although it does help the offense over the next few months and will hopefully help prevent us from losing 100 games this year. 
 
This is about letting all the guys know NOW that the pathetic HR output of this team, that the vast lack of power at power positions (what's the OPS of our starting 3B again?) won't continue. And it makes sure that we don't come back from FA empty-handed on power hitters like we did last year.
 
Bavasi made remarkable ill-planned trades when he was worried about losing his job.  Jack just traded two guys who were not gonna get a chance here and who don't seem likely to be more than bench players anytime in the next several years for a MOTO hitter for the next 1.5 seasons.  I don't think the two men are especially comparable, even if you consider this a "panic" move.  It's almost impossible to fill all a team's needs in FA.  You need young players to contribute, get a good trade or two in, and then plug a couple of holes via FA.
 
Jack didn't wait for FA to fill one of our 1B/DH holes.
 
Since when was taking care of a problem 6 months early a bad thing?  Maybe it's 6 months late, instead (and I think it is) but I'd rather know one of those slots is filled with a decent player in 2011.
 
Now I believe it is.
 
I reserve the right to change this post to full agreement with Matt if we don't have Branyan in 2011, however.
~G

No, I'm assuming Branyan stays.  I figure it might cost us an extra 1-2 mil to get Branyan to hang out for 2011.  We'll find out. 
You're assuming he doesn't stay.  That's fine.  If he doesn't stay, it's not a good trade.
But if the talent sucks, "developing it" won't really help.  If Kotchman sucks, he just sucks.  In 200 ABs or 500, he's not getting better.
It's Jack's job to look at Carp and say, "Yes, you can be my starting 1B in 2011" or "no, you really can't."  To me it looks like he decided the answer was no.  I would have decided the exact same thing.
Mike Wilson has had THREE THOUSAND plate appearances in the minors.  Maybe that's not enough development time for you, and you feel like he should get several hundred ABs in the bigs this year since the year is already lost as far as reaching the playoffs goes.
If Mike bombs in his couple hundred ABs this year, does that mean he's a failure?  If he hits big does that mean he's a success?
No and No.  Josh Wilson has been doing great work at the plate, but I don't think anybody views him as a 95-100 OPS+ bat going forward.  He's having a good month.
Wilson's having a good 3 months in the minors.  If you want to bet Jack's job on that continuing in the bigs in 2011 and beyond, I get that. 
He doesn't feel like making that bet, at least not with Mike playing first base.  Right now he's seeing what he's got with Saunders, so there's no real place for Mike Wilson, though after the trade deadline I'd expect Wilson to get a callup to play DH for a spell.
But Branyan blocks Carp, not Wilson.  Carp's "real hitter" groove in 1700 AA and AAA at bats has been an extraordinarily steady .800ish OPS.  Great for a shortstop, bad for an immovable 1B.  We can't afford another year with no power at 1B.  We just can't.
Carp can find power in the minors and if he does, then he can make a case for the 2012 team.  Auditioning him for a job we can't afford for his current no-power bat to win makes no sense.
So what are you angry about?
There's no one who is ready who is being blocked by this move.  There was no one who was traded who was going to help this team in the next 3 years even if they become somewhat awesome.  This isn't trading Choo or As-Cab.  An OF with a decent eye and zero power is not what we need.  We have a 3B like that in Chone.  we'll have a 2B like that next year with Dustin.
We need power in 2011.  And we'll find out if this trade let's us keep Branyan for that purpose.  I believe it wouldn't have been made without that part.
You believe that auditions for career minor leaguers being skipped is the end of player development as we know it, apparently.
So I guess we'll have to disagree.
~G

Hello Matt,
You may indeed be correct and that Branyan will be a non-factor after this year and the prospects that were given up develop into good major league ball players. 
Does that make this trade a bad move. Well, no.  It's just that the M's management have a different strategy to maintain profitablity and competiveness.
The M's desire to maintain a fan base and the dollars that accompany that fan base.  Currently the M's field a product that has a difficult time scoring more than a couple runs a game.  If the M's don't upgrade their offense their performance level will remain at an uninspiring level thereby allowing the fan base to drift away and spend their entertainment dollars elsewhere.  The payroll for 2011 will be based on attendance levels of 2010.  Therefore if M's wish to spend money on any free agents this off season it would behoove them to continue to provide and entertaining product to their fans.

1. The issue was never whether Branyan wanted to be here.  Both Z and Branyan knew that he did.  The issue was whether Branyan would insist on a deal that exposed the Ms to too much health risk.  Z now knows that the health risk isn't as bad as he thought, so they're back on the same page.  Branyan will play 1b here for the next few years, because somebody has to, and Kotch and Carp failed the audition, and both Z and Branyan know this.
2. Carerra has some mild interest, but he's just not worth getting upset over.  His track record is not close to what AsCabrera and Choo had done in the minors.

We need Russell Branyan in the middle of this lineup.  The Mariners are near unwatchable without him or someone like him.  The mistake is not the trade, it was letting him go in the first place.  The front office botched the job then, and now they are fixing it.  It sucks having to trade useful players, but it beats pretending this lineup works.  When I go to the Safe, I pay to see a competitive team.  I want to see a victory.  I was embarrassed by the product the last two times I went.  The M's know who they are targeting for promotion 2011 and beyond.  Nobody in this deal was included.   And nothing here keeps the M's from trying to acquire Kila Ka'aihue if they so desire to try to pry him from the Royals as well. 

No, Franklin Gutierrez is the reason we were able to let go of Gillies. He'll be here for years to come, which meant Zeke would never start for us.
 
Was it nice to have a backup CFer in Carrera still in the system?  Yeah.
 
Is it VITAL?  Well no, because if F-Gut breaks an arm or something, Zeke wasn't gonna step to the bigs and tear it up with a bat.  That's not his style (which is another in the vein of current-Ackley and Chone Figgins if he hits his potential fully).  We'd be looking for a glove-first wizard, and we can get a no-hit CFer any number of places.  Halman plays center like a friggin' gazelle and has a cannon for an arm.  It's not his ability to run down outfield flies that's the problem with him.
 
Zeke had a nice 4th OFer skillset. That can certainly turn into a starter skillset at a glove-first position like CF, but losing him ins't a crime.  Would I have liked to have saved him for a different trade?  Sure.
 
Unfortunately, our AAA hitters aren't especially major league.  Mangini might make it as a benchie, Wilson has finally gotten somewhat interesting, and Halman still has the world's worst pitch recognition.  Zeke was it if they wanted a young OFer who was somewhere near the bigs and had potential to make a 25 man in the next 2 years.
 
You keep saying Branyan won't stick around, but you don't know it.  You say he must be very angry at being mistreated by us in the offseason, but I haven't seen that yet either.
 
Your contention is apparently that "an .850 OPS bat is not worth Zeke Carrera" since you're not suggesting (that I've seen) that Branyan is not going to be one.  Perez and Broussard were not anything close to that, so if Branyan does wind up being an .850 OPS-er, is that worth Zeke or not?
 
I would say for this year, no, because Zeke is still a good trade chip, but if he does it next year then yeah.  I would trade what I think Zeke will be for a year and a half of a real bat.
 
Branyan's production for 3 months, putting butts in the stands is worth what to ownership?
Branyan next year is worth what?
 
Maybe Russell won't take a one year.  He might take one year and an option, and we now have 6 months to figure out if we can get him signed for that. 
 
There are a number of reasons to add Branyan now that don't have to do with catching the AL West leaders in 2010.
 
I could see looking back at this and regretting losing Zeke, sure.  Or regretting what we got for him, when we could have gotten so much more.  Especially if Branyan walks - then this will look like bald-faced overpayment.
 
But there are always more minor leaguers, and you only have 25 roster spots.  They can't all play for you, and if they won't play for you, then you trade em for someone who will.
 
Branyan will play for us.  I guess I still can't grasp this being the most inane move in the history of moves.
 
~G

I find myself in an odd spot.
I approved of not re-signing Branyan when he was asking lots for 2 years.
I was a big fan of Carp before Carp was even traded to the Ms.
Zeke Carrera was my first batting adopt-a-player selection.
I freely admit that I was wrong about Kotchman on a dozen counts, (and right about his 5 cent head).  I have grown LESS enthusiastic about Carp with each passing month.  I have also grown less enthusiastic about Zeke each month.
Basically, to say I support this trade - *I* have to admit I was wrong on three counts, (and I do).
But, the dynamic I see going on with the Branyan pickup is one of REWARDING effort.  Coming into June, it looked very much like the club was about to do a complete fold-up on the 2010 season.  The defense was dragging - the bullpen imploding - and a 100 loss season seemed like an optimistic view for the final 4 months of 2010.
The club had a meeting and started winning - including their longest win streak of the season.
CLEARLY, every guy on the Ms understands that the offense stinks.  They KNOW they are last in HRs.  They certainly know they've lost a ton of walk-off games.  But, they came out and kicked butt for a week even though the offense was just as stinky as ever.
So, Z went out and rewarded the current team with an actual HR-hitting slugger.  Does that mean they're going to win 22 in a row and make the playoffs?  Not a chance.  But, it does answer a question MANY players might've been asking -- "Is management going to support *US* for continuing to work hard - even in a lost cause?"
I can very easily see Matt's point of view.  From a purely numerical, hard science view, (depending on the weight of the variables), his argument could be very reasonable.  Obviously, the value of the particular prospects in question is debateable - as is the value of snagging another aging, injury-prone slugger. 
But, I believe, a good ORGANIZATION, can *NEVER* forget that it is dealing with people.  Matt changed his sig at MC to "Milton Bradley's Biggest Fan" - not because of his production - but because of the human element involved.  And regardless of whether Bradley turns things around - Seattle will receive a benefit throughout baseball from the way they have handled Bradley.  The concept of respect - of accepting the human aspects of the game - even while demanding the production - complicates things immensely.
I have watched the Marlins do the 100% correct by-the-numbers rebuild through fire sale TWICE.  They have a pair of WS rings to show for their savvy.  And in the process, they alienated a huge chunk of their fan base AND pretty much nuked any concept of "club-player loyalty" from existing for 20 years. 
While there are times to say -- "thanks, but it's time to move on" - (which the club should've done with Griffey after his horrid ST) -- the plus-minus of the human equation cannot be ignored.  It exists.  It is very real.  And it has consequences both in the present and future.
The Branyan move rewards the players RIGHT NOW.  It rewards the fans who are sticking with the team RIGHT NOW.  And the future cost in terms of production is debateable.  Certainly, if Zeke turns into Rod Carew the club will regret the trade.  But, there's nothing I see in Zeke to suggest his upside is beyond Podsednik. 
And while *I* was the one screaming before the season that 2010 needed to be veiwed (and used) as a rebuilding year - to give the prospect some substantial PT -- how many PAs with Carp hitting worse than Griffey can be allowed before the other 8 guys on the field view the situation as one where MANAGEMENT has given up? 
One of my mantras is that management cannot simply "say" how things should be.  They have to back up their rhetoric with action.  If the club wants the players to not simply tank the rest of the season, then management cannot tank the season in June. 
Frankly, while the club was slow to react to the offensive slump -- when 7 of 9 are slumping, there really isn't anything that can be done, (except fire the coaces).  Well, Lopez and Figgy have started hitting a little - and Johnson, too.  So, the offensive morass is at a point where fixing the weakest link (still DH and 1B) *IS* the proper move in terms of 2010.  In fact, it's the right thing for 2011, too.  Improve wherever you're worst.  It is usually the cheapest, lowest risk, and most impactful move for any club.
In the end, the human equation doesn't have nice formulas and great history and comps to judge against.  I think the club made a "human" leaning decision to bring Griffey back where the production side of things said it was a bad idea and it hurt them.  Here, I think they made a choice that might well be more human leaning than production based, (though I think the production arguments can be made to suggest that this is a lateral move in regards to the current and future production in play -- with Gutz and Ichiro locked up and Saunders already in play for LF, Zeke's future value to the Ms was likely tied to a trade anyway.  The question is, will his trade value increase or decrease beyond today?).
In the end, I think the club whiffed on the 2010 season largely due to the choice to bring Griffey back - (coupled with Sweeney).  The move that made sense in a rebuilding year made little to no sense in a contending year.  For 2011?  I see zero chance that the club can "contend" in 2011 without Branyan.  With him - I think there is a chance, depending on what other chips Z rakes in.  But the #1 surefire way to kill 2011 is to allow the players to believe that 2011 is a "phone-it-in" year. 
Outside of the true - sell multiple stars "fire sale" - the easiest way to build a perpetually losing organization is to say, "it's okay to phone it in this year."  Once that mindset arrives, it can be nearly impossible to shake.  Just ask teams like Pittsburgh, KC, Baltimore. 
Did the club need help at 1B?  Unequivicabally.
Did the club need Zeke any time soon?  Only in the event of a season-killing injury.
Because of Branyan maybe the club wins 75 instead of 70.  But, the damage done by sitting by and watching the ship sink is the danger I see -- of 2011 being another 60 win season ... and the one after that.
 

Branyan came to Milwaukee in 2004 when Z was Asst. GM.  They have a history.  Z knows where they left off.  It wasn't scorched earth.  It was a disagreement about the scope of the injury risk and the extent to which the Ms would assume injury risk.  Please read Z's comments.  They now have more data about the injury risk and now they are comfortable with it.  They weren't before.  He knows Branyan wants to be in Seattle.
Z knows a lot more about where they are and will be with Branyan than we do.
So, yes, this is a move about 2010 and 2011.  They want to be respectable this year, and they want to be respectable in 2011.  Is it legally binding that Branyan will be an M in 2011? No, but I think Z knows the score, and thinks it's in his favor.
They also have more data about Carerra (downward trend), Carp (no positive trend) and Saunders (positive trend).  So they pick Saunders to move forward with and cash in Carerra for a 1b and MOTO hitter, both of which they need whether they're in last place or first place.

I don't think its a wise move even if Branyan does come back.
1) If he accepts the option that means its market value anyways.
2) You are probably rebuilding in '11 anyways, and Branyan is eating up audition time.
Would I rather try Michael Wilson or Tui at 1B? Heck yes. I'd even rather try Bradley there to see how it pans out.

Matt,
You don't know that Jack has had no contact with Branyan about this, or his agent.  If you were gonna bring back a guy who was great while he was here and who might have bruised feelings, you might want to be sure that he was interested in coming back and sticking around?
If Branyan gets re-signed before the end of the season, is it time to eat crow?  I know I'll be doing that if he walks next year and we get nothing (assuming he can't crack Type B FA status).
I don't know whether it does or doesn't make it easier to keep him for 2011, but I'm proceeding from the premise that simply adding him for 2010 is not a good enough reason to trade for him, so I'm putting a thumb on the 2011 scale.  You're assuming that there is ZERO way that this helps with a 2011 Branyan in ANY WAY so you're putting the thumb on the scale for 2010 alone and saying the weight doesn't add up.
One of us is wrong.  Either this is not going to help us have a 2011 Branyan, or it is.  There's a gentleman's handshake or there isn't.  Carlos Boozer blew out to Utah once he reneged on a gentleman's agreement in the NBA, so these things aren't exactly ironclad... but I guess I would just be shocked if Jack had ZERO information on whether Branyan would be on his team in '11 or not.
And the Indians turning down his option was predicated on him still being an Indian at the end of the season.  I think Branyan was getting moved whether we were in on it or not.  So we got in on it rather than having him negotiate an extension with some other team and remove yet another power bat we would need from the market.
Maybe there are no 2011 ties.  Maybe we really do value 3 months of Branyan this year as being worth two prospects.
But I'll believe that when I see it.
~G

++ Please, for the love of Linda, Doc...LEARN!! ++
Is (1) the directing of the attention to personalities, with no attempt to buffer or be friendly, and
(2) the insinuation that others are being closed-minded.
................
The point itself -- isolated from the tone -- is a fair one.
But you keep looking around, bewildered, as complaints come in about the tact. 
.................
That we respect each other's competence is a given.  It's a people-skills issue.  Not that I don't have a few myself ... :- )

If we cancel the fractions, we're left with this in principle:
1) the #7 and #8 prospects in a given org -FOR-
2) A short-term platoon duo who figure to hit #4 for you, for one or two years.
....................
What is the lesson learned there?  If there is one to be learned, then yes, I'm still absent one light bulb. 
I don't see why the above trade paradigm is incorrect in principle, no.
I believe that is a 100% legitimate, and wise, use of farm resources:  to cash them in and (try to) complete the jigsaw puzzle when you have a shot at the ring.
......................
Perez and Broussard came over here and BOOM, their tandem .500 SLG shut off like a light bulb.  I'm genuinely unclear what I'm supposed to learn from that.

Carrera isn't our #7/8 org prospect, much less two of them.
I read this as giving up a lot less than Choo-plus -- I sold Choo very long --, and gaining at least as much if not considerably more.
Love Carrera or not, his UPside, isn't.  Choo's was.  Carrera isn't going to come back and bite the M's very hard, if at all.  Choo had a great shot to do so.
.................
So, yeah.  I'm baffled by your post on several different levels.
Lots of reaction, though.  Good thread, in terms of activity.

... when they traded for Broussard.   They'd won 5-of-7, had two months to go, were a weekend series off the lead.
You're saying that the GM had no right to try to compete in that situation?

Adding Branyan either (a) kills your chances of knowing your young first base prospects are ready to contribute in 2012 or (b) prevents you from making additional moves to add offense in 2011 because Branyan is DHing, Bradley's in left and Saunders has the rest of their playing time, so all you've got is first base (where you're presumably clearing space to try out prospects or use another rent-a-bat to stopgap you to the TRabens and Poythresses.
Point is...there is no good outcome to the Branyan acquisition...other than making Mariner fans stop crying into their beer when the #4 hitter comes up and it's Jose Lopez and we have no real power threats.
I think it's this that I find confusing.  We don't HAVE anyone ready for a 1B audition.  Branyan won't be holding anyone up in 2010 or 2011.  If we decide we want to be players in the Fielder/A-Gone sweepstakes after the 2011 season, it would be a good idea to not clog that position (or the DH position for Fielder if we don't like his glove) and we've done neither with Branyan.
It also buys us time to not NEED to rush Raben or Poythress if they start making the progress we hope they will.  If Raben's posting a 1.000+ OPS in AA or AAA in 2011 with an improved BB:K, I'm not crying about whether he needs an audition to prove himself before we get to the 2012 season.  Players you should want to add don't need an audition, they just need adjustment time.  
Carp and his .750 OPS in AAA needs an audition because you need to see if there really is nothing to see there, move along.
Tui needs an addition because his K rate was so astronomical that his "breakthrough" in AAA might be smoke and mirrors.
You audition the players you don't believe in, not the ones you do.
And if we don't have a player we believe in after the Branyan stall?  Then we'd better go get one.  But having a season and a half of real production isn't nothing.  I still have to watch 2011.  Free agents still get to pick what team they want to go to, and "the one with the historically terrible offense in the left-hand corner of the country" might not be a place they want to sign on to.  
Felix probably thinks there's a good outcome to adding hitters to the roster, even aging ones, as long as they can help put runs on the board.  Nobody enjoys losing 1-0 games and feeling like they'll keep losing them for the foreseeable future.  Morale does mean something.  
Not relying on Ackley and his doubles swing to carry the offensive load does mean something.  Crushing the kids under the weight of expectation doesn't do them any good, and nobody needs Poythress to have to be the savior of the 2011 offense.
Branyan makes the 2010 offense better.  For those trying to go for the #1 pick in the draft, this is bad.  For those trying to break the Ms losing ways, not as bad.  He may be around to make the 2011 offense better as well.  Since we failed at that last season this would be an improvement.
"There is no good outcome"?  I guess I can't see how that's possible.  It's always possible there are bad outcomes, but discounting any potential good that comes from having added what happens to be a good offensive player who was relatively inexpensive to acquire smacks of hyperbole or short-sightedness.
You play to win the game, as a terrible coach once said.  2011 isn't flushed yet.  The whole "We probably won't compete anyway" is a farce.  The Angels won a world title when they probably shouldn't have, against Bonds and his Giants.  The idea is to get to the playoffs and then roll the dice, hope your aces come out to play.  With some more offense, there's nothing preventing that chase from lasting longer than May 31st.
I'm not flushing two years of Mariners baseball because we're "probably" not gonna be able to take the West so we should give all the poor AAAA guys a chance to show they can be average.  
Branyan is above average.  Even if he falls to average that's still two steps above where our 1B/DH situation was, and where our minor league replacements are likely to be. Adding better players for cheap = epic fail is an equation I can't get my head around today, I guess.
Must be early.
~G

Hey Matt,
I'm uncertain how you determined that the GM does not have the right to compete this season ostensibly due to their place in the standings. 
I contend that the GM is ethically obligated to at all times attempt to place the most competitive product on the field as possible.  There are many customers who have purchased tickets for future games and are expect to be entertained by viewing baseball performed at the very higest levels.  A GM should attempt to satisfy these clients by employing players that will leave these fans not only extremely satisfied but have a desire to come back again and also generate additional business through the word of mouth testimonials.
Baseball is a business and the owners need to make money and they do that by ensuring fans purchase tickets.  And ideally develop a long term relationship with the customers so they come back time and time again.
 

Hey Matt,
I appreciate the use of a Straw Man to quickly make your point in attempting to convincing state your argument.  But somehow I don't think the M's spent their last $10 nor a baseball fan had the expectation that a competitive team should burn up a closer's arm in a game that's a blow out.  Nor is there much consesus anywhere except from you that the resources the M's spent on Branyan would help them win in 2012, 2013 or anytime in the future.  If that's how you interpretted my post, I'll attempt to articulate my point a little clearer in the future.
Again the GM must put fans in the seats in order to make money, to do this they need to have a product worth seeing.  I hope you agree to this point.  If a GM doesn't make the fans happy and the owners money he will be out of a job.  Ergo he is both personnally compelled to place a competitive product on the field but their is also an ethical component to the stakeholders of the team and that includes the fans.  Also if it were possible to do a NPV evaluation on this deal where we could compare the returns of Branyan to the potential yet very uncertain returns of Diaz and Carrera in the future - I feel quite certain it would come out in Branyan's favor.  Which would give the M's additional resources today to hopefully reinvest into the future.
Nonetheless back to the hopelessness of this season.  Although it may be hopeless to shoot for a play off spot there is nothing wrong with having a goal to be 5 games over .500 by the end of the season.  Now if we are down to the last 3-4 wks in the season and we remain completely out of the competition - the expectation of the fan/customers will have changed and playing young players/prospects is not only acceptable but also a potetial fan draw as they get to see a sneak preview of the 'new model' for next year.
For example in any business sector there is only one company who is number one in sales and hopefully profit.  However the other remaining competitors are also looking to make a profit and although they may never be able to reach the pinnacle of number one but they must be able to compete in the market place and maintain a profit or they will no longer be able to stay in business - i.e. Texas Rangers. 
LONG TERM FAN LOYALTY: I wish I had time and maybe I'll do a post later. But here is my quick take on developing a loyal fan base.  I don't know if you've ever been in sales but once you have lost a customer it's very difficult to ever win them back - since they've invested alot of emotional energy divesting themselves from you.  Secondarily the best time to get a customer hooked onto your product/service is when they are young.  If the M's can keep a competitive product on the field then they are more apt to develop a fanbase of young kids 10-15yr olds, well long term these kids will grow up as M's fans and continue to go to games when they become adults.  However if the M's do not continue to cultivate these fans well it becomes tougher as there interest and monetary resources well be directed elsewhere.
 
 

I've got agree with Matt. This is just a matter of losing focus of the big picture.
Its a relatively small move, but the wrong move for this franchise.

It's just really weird to me that these numbers are coming out of nowhere.  I can say we're gonna win 104 games in 2013 thanks to Russell, but it doesn't mean anything.  Why are we only winning 85 games in 2012 if Branyan is here in 2010 and 11?  Mike Wilson has the pitch reading ability of an earth-gazing snail.  It just isn't there. If a DH hitting .220/.280/.420 appeals to you, by all means grab him.  Last I heard we hated Balentien, which is Wilson's profile.  He's not doing anything in AAA that any number of other bats with his # of minor league ABs are doing.  It's not a guarantee of pro success.
I'm trying not to disparage Wilson (I happened to want us to give Balentien some time) but IMO he's NOT a solution, let alone a significant part of 5 extra wins in 2012.  And as much as I want Ackley to perform and get promoted, he's doing fine making tweaks in AA.  He'd be fine in AAA for the 2nd half of the year.  It's not brutally stunting his growth to not have him in the bigs right now manning 1B.  And he won't be playing 1B for us next year either. And have I mentioned that promoting Ackley now means one less year of Ackley later, so why would you WANT to bump him up in a "lost" season?
If Wilson can force his way onto the team with a continued string of success in AAA, great!  Let him force the issue.  The roster isn't ossified, even with Branyan. Mike's hitting .200/.294/.333/.627 over his last 10 games, btw, and his Tacoma line against righties is back to career norms, give or take.  Maybe he's really learning to crush lefties.  That's good.  Mike could always turn out to be someone. Or maybe he's just in his normal prime months before he wears down and sucks to close out the year, like he usually does.
We're getting into hyperbole now, when the signing of Branyan has totally imploded our playoff chances in 2012 before he even steps to the plate for us in 2010.  Let's step back, take a deep breath, and realize that maybe, just maybe, "stealing" Wilson's at-bats for a position he was not going to mann for us anyway isn't a 2012 pennant killer.
And that a 120 OPS+ bat does have SOME value above giving those ABs away to lesser players, even if those players are under contract longer.
~G

Lots to talk about here and so little time (as usual).  There was a reason when I jokingly took on the Silentpadna (silent partner) moniker 12 or so years ago.  Since Jeff and I look at baseball and life so similarly it kinda only made sense.  At that time the extent of my online experience was chatting baseball on the old AOL STATS board with the (affectionately called) OFT'ers.
As usual, I agree very much with Jeff, but especially with Sandy and his post of the year IMO.  As much as we want baseball (and all sports for that matter) to fit within our mathematical paradigms and want for it to be as simple as it would seem, it is very much a relational and 'people' business - on every single front.
If I was running a Hardball Dynasty franchise on WhatIfSports (which I do and enjoy tremendously), this is absolutely a decision I do not make.  However, baseball doesn't run like that.  How you treat people matters.  It affects other people.  Is there a case to be made against this trade?  Sure.  Is there a case for?  Of course.  I find a game where Josh Wilson is starting at 1B to be virtually unwatchable.  I frankly don't care what the mathematical chances are of winning this year.  The quality of the product to me includes the effort to make the guys you currently have on the roster better.  The Branyan deal has a good chance to do just that.  It also goes a long way in the 'people' department in several ways.  1.  It lets the fans know that the near term still matters.  2.  It lets Branyan, and players like him, know that they matter.  3.  And perhaps most importantly, it lets those in the clubhouse, who are busting their tails to win, know that they matter too.
And lastly, when your stoploss isn't, it's time to do something.  Branyan is your stoploss for that position in 2011.  And those that know what we have waiting on the farm know that.
I'm as intrigued as anyone at what a 26-year-old Wilson might do at the MLB level.  But he probably has a 50-50 chance to be as bad or worse than Kotchman at the plate next year even if he did have the rest of this year to 'audition'.  Branyan has about a 5% chance.  After what this franchise has had to endure at the plate, I'll take the 5%.
 
Lots more to say, but I just don't see the downside.  The guys they gave up are replaceable.  As is Carp, Poythress, etc.
 
My .02 (or less).
R

The one other thing I would add to this is that as net rats, in general we do not have access to the market studies that help determine what a serviceable and max revenue product is.  From the point of view of just about anyone that takes enough time to write on a forum or a blog, it seems a no-brainer to us what a smart baseball move is. 
I would love for every move to be made with the paradigm of the next pennant.  I don't doubt that it's the number one priority here for Z, but it's not the only one.  Not in this market.

You just never know until you give the guys a shot. I'm not even particular high on any of those guys either.
Still, I was never high on Fister or Vargas either. They proved me wrong.

I wonder if Branyan had a lot marketing value last year?
I personally have a strong distaste for any moves that aren't about winning the next pennant, but that might be it.

My point earlier was that we, as in the net rat community who are sabr-literate, are not the market.  The M's market does not behave the same as the A’s or the Yankees.  It may be in our interest to put a winner on the field as soon as possible and “waste” a season if necessary to do it.  That makes sense in some markets, but not necessarily in others.
 
People a lot smarter than me have assuredly studied how to market specifically to this one.  I don’t need to be persuaded that it is a vital part of the decision making process.  I’m also not speculating on what percentage of the process it is, only that it is a significant part.
 
I’m not making the case that the Branyan move is the correct one because of purely baseball reasons, although I think there is a reasonable case to be made for that too.  Basically, you’re trading 2 fringe prospects for a potential 2011 stop loss.  I’m perfectly okay with that.  Right now there is too big of a gap between the real talent in the system and the majors.  Branyan gives a you a chance to fill the talent void elsewhere if you have to, or at least to hold your own if a basher isn’t traded for or filled via FA.  A contract or trade requires two parties last I checked.  If there are no trade partners and no FA’s willing to sign, then what do you do in 2011 if you’ve got the rest of the roster ready to battle?  Do you punt 2011 in the preseason and start all over again? 

That makes some sense.
The Ms have a worse record than Cleveland over the last several years, but for whatever reason their attendance hasn't collapsed as badly.
Maybe the Ms just have a really great marketing department. 
Overfocusing on this also may be a large part of the reason why we haven't been going anywhere for a while now.

For sure. A lot of prospects have taken some steps forward this year.