Game 70, Cubs at Mariners
Dempster vs Vargas, 7:10 pm.
Since the line-up was posted on Twitter, I’ve gotten a few questions about why Jack Wilson is back at shortstop. The answer is actually pretty simple – he’s better than Josh Wilson. Yes, I know, Josh has gotten some hits and played decently in Jack’s absence, but keep in mind that he’s a career .242/.298/.344 hitter in 700 major league plate appearances, and he wasn’t much better than that in the minors. He had a nice hot streak thanks to some balls finding holes, but he is what he is a – a bench player. Jack Wilson is better than Josh Wilson, and when he’s healthy enough to play, he should spend most of the time at shortstop.
There’s also the argument to be made that the M’s should be trying to get out of the second year of Wilson’s contract by dealing him to a contender looking to patch a hole up the middle. It will be hard to convince teams to take Wilson’s $5 million contract for 2011 if they don’t get to see him play regularly, and the M’s may decide that they are best served going another (healthier) direction at the position and spend the money they would save somewhere else. If this is something they’re considering, than they need Jack Wilson to play often and play well.
There’s no reason for Jack Wilson to not be in the line-up on most days. Don’t overreact to a slight increase in batting average over six weeks of playing time.
Ichiro, RF
Figgins, 2B Josh Wilson, 2B
Bradley, DH
Lopez, 3B
Gutierrez, CF
Carp, 1B
Alfonso, C
Jack Wilson, SS
Saunders, LF
I think if the Mariners offered a “multi-year” contract to Branyan, it was one year with an option, but I don’t doubt it was better than what he signed with Cleveland for.
I don’t mind they didn’t sign Branyan he has been a 1.0WAR player so far this year, he wouldn’t have made much of a difference. Kotchman has been a -.6WAR player, but that doesn’t make Branyan any better.
In hindsight they should have outbid the Giants for Aubrey Huff, but that is an easy call to make now.
Yes, a 1 year offer was made and was reported. The debate between DMZ and I was over whether or not there was an offer made for more than one year. His quote of a “substantial multi year offer” being the impetus for said debate. Perhaps you should consider a few seconds of additional reading comprehension before you post.
However, I do thank you – very, very much – for proving my exact point. God bless you heychuck. You da man!
Yes, but why mess with something that’s working based on something predicted to work? It’s very reasonable to predict that Josh Wilson will regress, but you play him until that happens. Maybe not every day, but a lot. We’re not talking about a long-term contract. You can start benching him anytime.
Branyan, Huff, Vlad, Kotchman. Before the season started which one of them had the brightest potential future?
M’s made the right pick for a myriad of reasons, it just didn’t work out. I’m still of fan of their decision making process.
Kotchman is actually working out quite nicely as a defensive replacement. But really first base is not a difficult position in any way. Trade him please.
Right–opposing GM’s are knocking the doors down over that possibility!
Well, the Mariners did make Branyan that 1 YEAR OFFER – and he was their first choice, so if you agree with their process, you must be on board with their first choice.
They couldn’t come to terms with their first choice – and they moved on – for strictly financial reasons, not brightest future (at least not long term term) reasons. They were attempting to “go for it” this year.
Are you still certain that the Mariners “made the right pick for a myriad of reasons” – when they did not end up going (of their own volition) with their first choice?
I am equally certain they did not make the right choice.
If the Mariners were overly concerned with Branyan’s back issues – they never would have offered him the one year deal to begin with. They were using the back issues as negotiating leverage to avoid having to add a 2nd year … and their negotiating position resulted in them not being able to go with their first choice and ultimately making the wrong decision… in my opinion.
@CYK I’m not asking for much. I’ll trade the guy for a few bags of sunflower seeds.
I heard that they offered Braynan a 2 year/20m contract. But he wanted more money.
BA-hahahaha…if that’d been true, Branyan would’ve scorched the paper by signing it so fast.
The reported offer from the Mariners was a 1+1 and Russell was hoping someone would give him a multi-year deal.
Larry Stone reported in November.
Bottom line. The M’s weren’t willing to commit to Branyan for more than a year because of concerns over his ability to remain healthy over the course of even that one year. When Russell turned down the 1+1, they went another direction based on those concerns.
Hindsight is 20/20.
Oh, how I wish the M’s were 20-20…especially with our pitching/defense approach starting to pay some dividends.
(I know, I know…SSS/regression counterarguments taken as read.)
Thank you for the additional insight. DMZ also posted some additional information on Dave’s other post about Lou (probably by accident) – to which I was also appreciative. Although the specific facts appear to remain a bit elusive, it does appear that there was at least a 1+1 offer made by the M’s and rejected by Branyan. Nuff sed about that.
I agree. My only question at this point (and I think it was my initial question to begin with – when I was a lot younger and moderatly less informed last night – is what might it take to reacquire Branyan from Cleveland? I think he can still be had. I think the season would be more entertaining to watch if we had him … during the teams pursuit to regain its stranglehold on 3rd place in the West and hopefully grind its way toward mediocrity. He has the one tool that the M’s most need (power). The M’s already have enough positions where they are trying to work young players into the mix (LF and C).
Pgreyy: If you have an opinion on what it might take to reacquire Branyan – or if you think I am pissing into the wind and would be best served by stopping soon – I would appreciate hearing your opinion … or any other people’s opinions for that matter.
I am not exactly sure how I got to the point of feeling a need to give Branyan a “tongue bath” – but since I am here now – I might as well go for the Gold … so to speak.
What do I think it might take to reacquire Branyan?
A time machine…a mind control device…a complete lack of faith in the process by which decisions are made in this organization.
Any of those would probably do.
This is definitely a case of having made one’s bed and now having to lie in it.
(See also: Cameron, Mike and the letting go of same)
I’m no expert. I liked what Branyan did for us when he was healthy last year…I was disturbed by his health issues. I understand the reticence to give him a multi-year deal…and since he was adamant about getting that, I felt the decision to let him go was understandable.
Would I have wanted an 2010 M’s roster with Silva and Branyan on it? Certainly not at the time the roster was being put together. (But, of course, I wasn’t thrilled with Sweeney coming back, either…)
Well, it turns out we know exactly what it might take to reacquire Branyan: two minor prospects.
Now the question is: why?