Olney: Indians Sign Russell Branyan
by Ryan on Feb 20, 2010 10:45 AM EST
in Transactions
Email
Print
Buster Olney is reporting that the Indians have beat out the Tampa Bay Rays for Russell Branyan's services. The deal is supposedly for one year and $2M, with a possible $1M in incentives and a $5M mutual option, something that I don't ever remember the Indians agreeing to previously.
This is fourth time that the Indians have acquired Branyan, each time using a different method of acquisition. They selected him in the seventh round of the 1994 draft, traded for him in early 2004, signed him a minor-league deal in the summer of 2007, and now have (reportedly) signed him to a major-league contract.
Last year Branyan had his best season as a professional, hitting 31 home runs and posting a 128 OPS+ as Seattle's full-time first baseman, though his production dropped off in the second half as he battled through back problems. Concerns about his back was the main reason why he hadn't signed much earlier in the winter.
We all know the trade-offs in Branyan's game: He's going to strike out many times, but he's also one of the best power threats in baseball. The Indians needed some more power production from the corners, and also an insurance policy at first base in case Matt LaPorta isn't ready to start the season. This signing probably means that Andy Marte isn't making the club, assuming the Indians carry twelve pitchers.
100 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
For some strange reason, I’m not against this move. It would have been nice to have added a righthanded bat, but as the season shakes out, Branyan could prove very valuable.
It’s curious, and perhaps we aren’t understanding how the FO sees the L/R breakdown, but if Branyan is getting the lion’s share of at-bats at 1b, then we’ve basically traded Andy for Russell.
by dgcambridge on Feb 20, 2010 11:37 AM EST up reply actions
I think you mean:
“For some strange reason it had to be, it was all a dream about Tennessee”
by APV on Feb 20, 2010 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Marte is not out, but have you heard a single comment about him for Shapiro, Antonetti or Acta over the winter? It will take something beyond a good performance by Marte for him to get in the lineup. Someone is going to have to get hurt or traded and Marte is going to have to play well from the start to get any serious time. I basically expect him to get DFAed sometime during spring.
I think they might keep him to see how LaPorta pans out after the surgery, but once he’s up and running Marte’s gone.
by clusterchuck on Feb 20, 2010 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
“We have to see where he fits,” Shapiro said of Marte. “He can play good defense at third or first. We’re intrigued by the year he had at Triple-A.”
But someone has to go now. Brick thinks Toregas or Gimenez.
Wait for the injuries in spring training and the LaPorta recovery before making a decision on Marte?
by Deep South Ken on Feb 20, 2010 12:22 PM EST up reply actions
Toregas or Gimenez
One of those guys has to come off the roster. There is no way we go forward with 5 catchers on the 40-man (Marson, Redmond, Santana, Toregas, Gimenez).
Even if you don’t count Gimenez as a catcher, you probably still don’t go with 4 catchers on your 40-man…especially not when two of them are as young as Marson and Santana. I think Toregas could be or should be a major league backup catcher, but he has been in the wrong organization for that to happen.
just wondering why you are as high on Marte so far he has done little with his chances, 668 ab 15hr and a 630 ops and 26yrs. The Indians management does not seem to include him their plans.
Fan in Texas
it’s not about being “high” on him. it’s about thinking he has a place on this and next year’s rosters.
also! i’m not about to engage in the “done little with his chances” argument.
I was not trying to be a asshole, just wondered why you think he can help the team more than say Kearns or Grudzielanek, My guess with the lack of proven starters we may very well carry 8 bullpen guys, this leaves room for only two player and one of them will needs to be able to play 2nd or SS. So where does he fit?
Fan in Texas
My guess with the lack of proven starters we may very well carry 8 bullpen guys
I think this is highly highly unlikely. We will almost certainly have one, if not two guys in the pen who can be stretched out for long appearances (i.e. Sowers, Talbot, Ambriz)…a 13 man pitching staff seems like an especially bad idea on a team with at least one guy who can’t play defense and can’t play everyday (Hafner).
i know last year we kept ending up doing that with our staff a lot last year, but that really is abmormal. i don’t see it happening. and even if it does at some point, it won’t be at the beginning of the year with what’s usually littered with extra off days.
setting that aside, i view marte as more of a future asset than grudz or kearns, so i’m not ready to dump him for guys of their ilk. even if he does turn out to be nothing. i know kearns and grudz won’t be assets in 2011. marte at least might be.
he also plays thrid base, well defensivley, and is right handed. i think that has a spot on this year’s bench. peralta’s days are numbered. chiz is over a year away. so i think there’s PT to be had at the end of this year and/or beginning of next year. and i just assume give that time to marte. i’d just rather see him in there more than any other guy we have out of the list of hodges, buscher, branyan, or a second baseman/utility guy like bixler, grudz, valbuena, donald, or other MI minor leaguer.
Anyone who talks about Marte’s “chances” is either willfully ignorant — about those “chances” or about baseball generally — or simply unfamiliar with the subject.
Your second sentence is the real reason not to be high on Marte. If he’s never in their plans, there’s no reason to be high on him.
First of all I’m not ignorant and I know a little bit about baseball. So let go to the second sentence, it seems to me that if all the other teams have passed on him and the Indians have called him up the last 4 years and he has not produced how many chances does he get?
Fan in Texas
Have you really missed the last 25 discussions of this exact question?
They say there are no stupid questions, but you’re making me wonder.
by Jay on Feb 22, 2010 11:39 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
It’s clear that he defines every at bat as an opportunity, damn the context, damn the sample size. I suspect he thinks Jamie Quirk to be the Best Indian Ever.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Feb 22, 2010 11:41 AM EST up reply actions
No I do not, but you only get so many chances in life, and when you get a chance to do something few get, you either grab it or it passes you by.
Fan in Texas
So your prescription on Marte is based on some grandiose life philosophy?
I give you an “F” in baseball and an “F” in philosophy, too. “You grab it” is not an approach that works in a major league at-bat. It’s just stupid.
Marte has not made the most of his opportunities, that much I can agree with. But you can’t look at his stats and get a read on his abilities, because the circumstances have not been realistic, and stats are misleading. That is, at most half of his big-league at-bats can be called “opportunities.”
I’ve never changed my definition of “opportunity.” It’s four solid, uninterrupted months of everyday, major league at-bats. Unlike every other elite prospect we’ve seen in the past ten years, Marte has never had that.
my grandiose life philosophy let me retire at age 55 and allowed me to travel the world so I don’t think it is a “F”. I’m not look at stats to get a reading on his abilities, watching him play he is have average range a well above average arm, and good hands. He loses his concentration at times during the game. Gets around on FB but his swing get long at times breaking ball give him fits that is what I see. What do you see vs the stats.
Fan in Texas
What I see is that he’s had five months of “opportunity” scattered across five seasons. That is not a real opportunity.
I congratulate you on your life success, but at the risk of sounding flip, it is just possible that you got lucky. Keep on congratulating yourself, though, because people really like that.
Yes, luck is a good thing but I think hard work plays a bigger part. Implying that someone is ignorant is not the best way to start a comment, And I would have never said anything about my life’s successes or failures if you did not think I earned a F in life.
Fan in Texas
What grade did you get in grammar? Just wondering.
by Brad D on Feb 22, 2010 1:01 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I said you earn an F in philosophy.
As for hard work playing a bigger part, that’s what the “new rich” always say. Always the self-congratulation, no accounting for luck or the good folks who helped you along the way.
Jay you do not know me? not sure how you can imply things about me, have I ever slammed you or anyone on this site? What make you feel that you can? If you want to take this online I have no problem with that you have my email address.
Fan in Texas
I only know what you show me.
The Marte discussion seems to bring out the worst in us more often than not. I have no idea why you dredged it up — after umpteen brutal discussions which established a few things but resolved nothing — and I wish you hadn’t. Having said that, I’m not going to just let someone slog total BS up here about one of our players and let it go unanswered.
Case in point …
Exchange between you and me on this same subject, just a few months ago.
Further dissection of “opportunities.”
Search for LGT comments with the words “Marte” and “opportunities.”
I think it’s fair to say, this didn’t need to be brought up again, and you probably should have known better.
“You grab it” isn’t a philosophy that works in anything. It’s condescending garbage in almost all applications.
It’s not that. It’s that grabbing opportunity is about 5% of getting ahead in life. It takes talent and luck to get things, not some whimsical notion that you are seizing the day. People who think like that demonstrate an abject lack of understanding.
sorry, i know i’m relavitvely new to this site and I mean no disrespect, but I have to say this:
so what you are saying is that hard work is worth 5% in life? The rest is luck and talent under all circumstances? I disagree with you whole heartedly; not only with your philosophy, but also with the way you formed your argument. You state that “grabbing opportunity is about 5% of getting ahead in life” as if that’s a fact, then you top it off by disparaging anyone who question that thought as not having your enlightened understanding of life. I agree with you to a slight extent that you can’t just go out, work hard (grab opportunities) and expect all good things to come your way. But, suggesting that taking advantage of opportunties plays such a small role in being successful (i’m assuming that’s what you mean by “things”) is not something that I feel you are qualified to state as a fact. As a matter of fact; you are being more condescending than fanintexas
"You grab it" isn’t a philosophy that works in anything. It’s condescending garbage in almost all applications.
by clusterchuck on Feb 23, 2010 11:11 PM EST up reply actions
I was responding to this.
and when you get a chance to do something few get, you either grab it or it passes you byWhich is, frankly, garbage in any sort of philosophical sense. “Grab it” doesn’t imply any sort of hard work or anything other than some sort of cosmic serendipity.
That is what I object to in the strongest, and most arrogant, of terms. Yes, I disparage anyone who thinks that some sort of wonderful chance will drop into their lap and all they have to do is “grab it.” I’m ok with that. I’m not disparaging hard work, talent, or luck. Just happenstance as the be-all end-all in life.
like I said me and grammar do not always get a long, did not mean to imply that wonderful chances will drop into your lap. When I said “grab it”. What I meant to say is when you have a chance to better your life put in the extra effort and time to make it happen. Maybe my thinking is old school but that is the way I was raised. I was not trying to offend anyone or to cause such a fuss.
still love my tribe
I think it’s old-school and not as weak of an idea as it’s been portrayed here. It’s a little thin, that’s all.
Getting back to the actual topic, the real problem is that it just doesn’t apply to Marte or to baseball players in general. Nobody has ever questioned Marte’s preparation or focus, but going up to the plate and “grabbing it” is a misapplication of your basic concept.
I have a better understanding of what you meant now. So would you argue that all Marte (or anyone struggling to make an impact) has to do is work harder?
I’m not disparaging hard work, talent, or luck. Just happenstance as the be-all end-all in life.
I couldn’t agree more with this.
by clusterchuck on Feb 24, 2010 12:47 PM EST up reply actions
sorry, the top paragraph should be in quotes
by clusterchuck on Feb 24, 2010 12:48 PM EST up reply actions
This again. From you, again. Why are you beating this dead horse?
what has Marte done that make you care what happens to him, he has 600 ab and done what?
and why would you think Marte will not suck
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Feb 21, 2010 4:50 PM EST up reply actions
Your welcome. I saw a chance to make a comment, so I went ahead and grabbed it before it could pass me by.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by Joel D on Feb 23, 2010 5:41 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I don’t mind this acquisition, but the mutual option is a little perplexing.
If Russell is an untradeable bust, the Indians are going to be stuck with $5 million next year. If he does well, presumably the club gets a bargain, but it’s hard to see Russell in the 2011 plan unless Travis is toast. (And I have a nagging feeling that this is a big reason for the signing.)
I think that the mutual option means that both player and team have to exercise it in order for it to go into effect.
The only other time I can think of that the Indians did a mutual option was with Aaron Boone—though I don’t have the evidence for that off hand.
by Deep South Ken on Feb 20, 2010 12:01 PM EST up reply actions
Oh. I assumed it was either. Actually, I tried looking it up in Cot’s glossary but the only thing discussed under options was the minor league variety.
So if both parties need to agree, what is the difference between and option and no contract at all? Russell can play for $20 million or league minimum if both parties agree.
that’s why a mutual option seems silly. player tanks, team declines. player goes off, player declines. the odds he plays to exactly a $5M value in each parties eyes seems unlikely. if he does, i suppose this saves air time minutes.
I’m not familiar with the contract with Branyan, but a mutual option gives the possibility of additional wrinkles—such as a vesting provision, or if the player is traded during the season the option becomes a player option.
by Deep South Ken on Feb 20, 2010 12:15 PM EST up reply actions
I want to say ‘given the fact that these contracts are used regularly in baseball there must be some utility to them’, but since a) there are few things to which that logic doesn’t necessarily apply, and baseball is likely one of them, and b) I can’t come up with anything, I think you’re right.
by jakesinger777 on Feb 20, 2010 12:26 PM EST up reply actions
I too think that the 2011 option has something to do with the likelihood of a trade.
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
i think that’s a good bet. “why should i sign with you, you’re just gonna trade me in july and i might be stuck on the bench or hate it there”
Yes but that clause can be in there without a phony option too.
by jakesinger777 on Feb 20, 2010 6:47 PM EST up reply actions
Most players don’t really care about potential trades on a one-year deal. The great majority of the time, a mid-year trade is from a non-contending team to a contending team, which practically any player will prefer, even if he’s going from a full-time role to a part-time role. If he hates it there, he can leave before long. I’m not saying they wouldn’t value a trade veto right, I’m just saying they wouldn’t value it enough to let it be a factor in a one-year deal. Better to go for more salary and waste no chips on this noise.
I guess they could have put in a clause where the mutual option becomes a player option if he’s traded, but again, it just seems like it complicates things, and not necessarily in the player’s favor.
Especially in the context of a $2M deal. That means he will have to have increased his value by 150% in one season (from the Indians’ perspective), in which case there is almost no chance that the prospect of someone offering more than $5M for next year won’t be real enough that he bolts.
by jakesinger777 on Feb 20, 2010 12:16 PM EST up reply actions
So what do they call an option where the team can pick it up for, say, $5mm, or else it’s on the player to pick it up for, say, $3mm? That was always my understanding of a mutual option.
Seems like a lot of mutual options have buyouts for the second year. i.e. if the team declines, the player gets $1mm, and perhaps the player can decline and receive a buyout of only $500k. If that’s the case with Branyan (and my arbitrarily picked $1mm option is accurate), picking him up in 2011 has a true cost of $4mm, and his contract this year is effectively $1.5mm, since the $500k buyout (if he declines) is sunk cost.
What’s the over/under on the club’s runs scored ranking among all 30 teams? I’d put it at 11.
But then there’s that pitching part of the equation…
I am not a big fan of the signing, but the lefty/righty thing might be a bit overblown. In the central, I can only come up with four likely left handed starters: Beuhrle, Danks, Robertson, and Duensing.
Huff, Sowers, Laffey, Lewis
Oh, wait.
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
by westbrook on Feb 20, 2010 4:42 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Good point, although opposing managers will probably jigger with their rotations a bit to make sure their lefties face us.
It bothers me from a bullpen sense. Ooh lookie looky, Sizemore, Hafner and Branyan are due up in the 8th.
by Brick. on Feb 20, 2010 6:38 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Is it a crazy idea
that maybe part of the thought process is to Beane some other team and flip him for prospects at mid-season?
It’s not crazy at all. No question that part of the value of signing any player to a one-year deal, in any season, is the potential to trade him mid-year. It was part of DeRosa’s value last year, and Millwood’s in 2005, and Belliard’s in 2004, etc. The possibility of flipping him also potentially cuts the cost in salary.
Having said that, I don’t think you sign a player primarily to flip him; you’re just aware that part of the potential value you’re getting is that he could be traded.
Setting aside the question of the wisdom of the signing,
Russell is a fun guy to watch. If anyone likes watching MLB highlights, the brewers SBN blog has a post up today with a few of them.
I agree.
Take note … LGT style is not to use the subject line. It’s irritating to others. Just thought you should know.
Watched two of them and had this thought:
Hammy’s gonna start screaming every time the ball goes in the air off Russell’s bat. A SWING AND A high pop to second. Kinsler has it. Two down.
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
by westbrook on Feb 21, 2010 8:58 PM EST up reply actions 6 recs
It’s February 22nd and I am just dying to hear a Hamilton fake-out.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 22, 2010 6:26 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Josh Hamilton on public relapse: ‘It was just wrong. That’s all it comes down to.’
- Photo: The Marlins’ ridiculous-looking home run sculpture is almost complete
- Yankees GM Brian Cashman lures alleged stalker into police dragnet
- Report: Josh Hamilton had a relapse with alcohol
- Happy Birthday Boy! Wes Ferrell, the best-hitting pitcher of all-time, would be 104
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
