Add new comment

Great arguments, Doc.
The strongest is Cliff Johnson - the ONLY guy who was actually used in roughly the same manner as Branyan. Then again, Johnson was a righty, who killed lefty pitching, (.905 OPS), and was pedestrian against righties (.745), which is why he NEVER got 500 PAs in a season despite playing 15 years.
Honestly, I've never bought much into the old-man, young-man profiles. I appreciate what King James showed - and understood it was a modest difference. For me, I put EVERYONE into the same category - human - and accept that all humans age - but some adjust better than others, and I don't believe anyone, (including myself), can predict with any degree of accuracy which will age quickly or slowly. So, I therefore am cautious about ANY player entering mid-30s land.
(Morgan Ensberg also shows up on Branyan's comp list - and look what has happened to him by age 32). Craig Wilson is actually the #1 comp for him for overall career stats.
My issue with projecting Branyan ahead is that because of how he has been used in his career, we simply do not have a reasonable data pool to judge him against ANY full-time starting player. The 2009 season is it. It's the only real data we've got showing him as a full-timer. Yes, it's a great line at the moment. But, if you're LOOKING for reasons to distrust it, you can find them. His surreal BABIP results - (.380 against righties, .417 against lefties). His career numbers .308 and .313.
Heck, I was one of the long voices saying that playing full time MIGHT have the very impact of making him better from both sides of the plate. But, he's a career .830 hitter when playing primarily in leveraged situations. He's a 1030 hitter at the moment. Based on his history AND on his BABIP, there are STRONG indications that the 1030 is transient.
Additionally, he's playing in a unique situation that will NEVER come again. He's getting his ***first*** ever shot at a full-time gig. After he plays a full year as a starter, that can never be the case again. The mental environment for the future cannot be the same as 2009 - ever again.
Part of the discussion on what to expect needs to be -- what level do we "expect" him to hit at for the next 3 years? If the concensus is that he'll be hitting .830 for three years -- yes I would say that's not an unreal expectation. If the assertion is that he's going to put up a trio of 1000 OPS seasons behind this one. Then I will vehemently take exception to the projection.
In all honesty, I have a soft spot for players like Branyan, Delluci, Gabe Gross, who are screwed by "common wisdom" early in their careers, and don't get a chance to play full time until late in their careers. But, it is BECAUSE I have a soft spot that I know I have to temper my enthusiasms.
My position is this ...
I believe Branyan is having a career year - and while he's posting a 1000 OPS, his trade value is as high as it will ever get. While I expect he'll remain an .830 OPS producer for another couple of seasons, (maybe 3), players DO get hurt more often as they age, (and Branyan's health isn't completely spotless). Basically, he's just about the perfect sell-high candidate I could imagine.
I can appreciate the concept that the risk is not that great through age 36. In point of fact, during the steroid era, age 36 was in fact, my cut-off point for continued production expectations. I may be overly afraid of age issues today, because the last 20 years of data are at best questionable - at worst, just plain wrong. (Three years ago I wouldn't have blinked at signing someone from age 34-36 -- today, I believe it's a much riskier proposition.)
But, the primary reason why I'd like to see if Branyan can be flipped is because he's blocking the bulk of the near-ready talent on the farm today. My greatest fear with extending Branyan is that you block guys like Carp, Clement, (maybe Ackley) based on a 33-year-old .830 OPS 1b with meh defensive skills who just happens to be having a 1030 season.
I'm certainly not going to wail and gnash my teeth if Branyan is extended for 3 years. It's a FAR cry from the extension of Johjima in the risk-reward department.
Most of my disconnect with many of the suggestions and scenarios going around the web at the moment, (and certainly not just yours), is that my belief is that given the situation, Seattle would be much better served in concentrating on building a foundation for SUSTAINED success -- rather than focusing on immediate success.
It's a knife edge, balancing future concerns with immediate concerns. Hindsight indicates the club wasn't NEARLY as close to competing as they believed they were when they made the Bedard trade. And while I dearly love Bedard, and hope the club can extend him, the trade seriously undermined the FUTURE of the club. So, instead of 1 step forward, the franchise took two steps back.
If the club wants to become competent at developing talent, (rather than purchasing it), then you HAVE to allow talent to come up and succeed or fail. Because Seattle has decent sized pockets, there is a temptation to constantly plug holes with FAs -- which ends up (IMO) contributing to the ineptness of player development.
I don't think Z is going to allow that. And certainly the club will be wise to sign some FAs at some times. Honestly, if Branyan were a middle infield import of the same age, I'd be jumping at the chance to extend him, because the farm is so barren there.