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
Add new comment
1