Comments on: Branyan and his Falling Price Tag

By: Coug1990

Coug1990 — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:06:42 +0000

There is no question that the back injury robbed Branyan of his strength and was a major reason for his second half slide. But, this is his career numbers .234/.331/.491. He has been in the majors since 2000, so is the real Branyan what we saw the first half of last year or what he has done the other nine years?

My guess is the other nine years and that is why Mariners easily moved on when Branyan asked for more money than they thought he was worth.

Somehow the Mariners continued to play well in the second half of the season without getting much production from first base. Whatever the Mariners get from Kotchman and Garko this season should be more than they got from Branyan in the second half of last year.

By: Scott Weber

Scott Weber — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:31:29 +0000

BABIP doesn’t include home runs because they’re not technically “in play.”

By: docmilo

docmilo — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:06:19 +0000

Of course his BABIP was high, the balls left the park. Branyan’s numbers really took a dive when his back started hurting a few weeks before the ASB. I don’t feel that his regression was moving towards some mean. The guy was injured and that swing requires a ton of torque. I’m not saying his first half is what he will be forever, but it sure was fun to watch.

By: BoiseM

BoiseM — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:21:36 +0000

I won’t miss him batting second in the order behind Ichiro.

By: harrison

harrison — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:23:00 +0000

You do have to take into account that some of these numbers are because of the injury rather than regression. Was there regression, of course. But, the steep regression was his back injury.

By: Coug1990

Coug1990 — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:15:48 +0000

Thanks Greg. Some of that is regression, which just shows his first half was an anomaly for him. With his back injury, the Mariners did not want to take a chance on him for what he wanted at the time and went to plan b (Kotchman).

I understand what Scott is saying, but I think the ship has sailed in regards to Branyan. I liked him, so I wish him luck whatever port he docks.

I was listening to Buster Olney on the radio yesterday and he was making the case the Mariners are really going to miss Branyan. That may or may not be true, but the Mariners survived the second half of the season with little help from him. I think that is part of the reason that Jack Z thinks he is replaceable.

By: Scott Weber

Scott Weber — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:56:54 +0000

Why would we ever stop talking about potential ways to improve the team?

By: 200tang

200tang — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:27:21 +0000

Nothing wrong with just discussing him.

By: mrakbaseball

mrakbaseball — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:46:04 +0000

People are still discussing Branyan? Pitchers and catchers report next week, let’s focus on that.

By: gregrabble

gregrabble — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:13:34 +0000

First half: 79 G, 341 PA, .956 OPS, .382 OBP, 22 HR, 95 K, 45 BB
Second Half: 37 G, 164 PA, .688 OPS, .274 OBP, 9 HR, 54 K, 13 BB

A lot of that is just expected regression. His BABIP was really, really high in the first half, and that just wasn’t going to be sustainable.

The scenario presented here could potentially work out really well, but I don’t really like the idea that if Branyan gets hurt, Garko is our full time first baseman.

By: Coug1990

Coug1990 — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:01:17 +0000

Branyan was .251/.347/.520 for the 2009 season. Does anybody know what Branyan’s first and second half splits were?

By: MarinerMan6

MarinerMan6 — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:34:58 +0000

I’d say that is a pretty ballsy proposition Scott but one worth thinking about. However, I have to believe given the lack of market for Branyan his back is still a major issue (despite what he says publicly). Think about it, the M’s just gave 1.5 mill. guaranteed to a starting pitcher that won’t be healthy enough to pitch until mid-season but won’t consider Branyan?? If the Ms feel better about Bedard’s health going forward than Branyan, that speaks volumes of how f*&^d up his back really is currently. To be honest I would have loved to kick Jr. to the curb and have Branyan take his spot on the roster.

By: Scott Weber

Scott Weber — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:30:56 +0000

I think it had just as much to do with Branyan wanting a multi-year deal as it did his back, although there’s really no way to verify that.

By: 200tang

200tang — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:02:48 +0000

It would really depend on his back. I assume the Mariners went a different route because his back doesn’t look all that great and if that’s the case I’ll take the mediocrity, although Kotchman does have a small amount of upside.

By: Scott Weber

Scott Weber — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:50:26 +0000

It’s a gamble. Guaranteed mediocrity or up/down a win in either direction?

By: 200tang

200tang — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:39:55 +0000

I say keep Kotchman. He’s a decent upside play and even in his ‘usual’ year he still brings a lot of value with the glove. I’m also not sure how much of an upgrade Branyan realistically brings over Kotchman. Not to mention that he’s much riskier even if Garko can hold down 1B decently enough should Branyan go down.

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:29:45 +0000

I would definitely welcome Branyan back in that scenario, but the biggest problem is the same as the Lopez/Hudson scenarios. If there is a team that needs a 2B, why wouldn’t they just sign Hudson instead of giving something up for Lopez? (As the Twins did)

Similar problem here, though there are a few variables that make it a little more plausible than Lopez/Hudson. For one, Branyan’s health issues will drop his value. Also, the expected return for Kotchman wouldn’t be much, where in trading Lopez you’re looking for a major piece.

It’ll definitely be interesting to see what happens with Branyan. Only team publicly in on Branyan at this point is the Marlins.