Danny O'Neil Compares Deion Branch to Erik Bedard
by John Morgan on Sep 10, 2009 2:56 PM PDT
99 comments
No player ever wants to be injured. When it happens, it's normal to feel frustration and pity. Marcus Tubbs was chopped down in his youth, leaving the Seahawks without a stud defensive tackle and Tubbs without a career. It's not rational to feel anger. Tubbs did not know of his injury, did not sucker Seattle into drafting him, and never stopped fighting for his career. Medical science is not yet advanced enough to predict injuries like Tubbs'. Medical science is not yet advanced enough to fix injuries like Tubbs'. It's misfortune, misfortune that cost Tubbs his dream and the Seahawks a great young player.
That is why it is unacceptable for a writer to sic his readers on the injured. Danny O'Neil is careful not to blame Branch for his injuries, but the implication of his piece "Deion Branch, the Erik Bedard of the Seahawks?" is that Branch is a burden and his acquisition a disaster. He compares Branch to Sisyphus' boulder*. It's unfair to Branch and unfair to general manager Tim Ruskell.
*Worst metaphor in sports.
Sisyphus had his rock, Seahawks fans have Deion Branch and every year you push yourself toward the possibility he'll be ready to contribute.
It's a convoluted metaphor I struggle to interpret, but I think O'Neil means rolling Branch is our punishment for tricking Persephone to release us from the underworld. Or was that losing the Sonics? I'll ask Zeus.
But if you're counting on Branch to contribute, you're spitting into the wind of history on that one.
In Branch's three seasons, one partially missed because of a contract hold out and one partially missed after recovery from an ACL tear, he has twice been Seattle's second leading receiver, and once their third leading receiver. The wind of history seems quite calm.
What was that old saying? Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me twice -- never fool me again? I seem to recall a president saying something like that.
Now, Branch isn't trying to fool anyone.
So why did you say it?
What is that old saying? It's better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
And for the past three years it's been possible to talk yourself into the idea that this is the year he might really be a contributor only to have him go down with an injury.
Let us see, in 2006 Seattle didn't attain Branch until the regular season and then he didn't miss a game because of injury. In 2007, he was injured and missed significant time. He's right there. In 2008, he was recovering from a major surgery. That is three seasons. Two in which no major contribution should have been expected. If the local media fools fans into thinking a hurt player will contribute, like they did last season with Branch, can we blame the player when the prediction is wrong?
Branch's number of receptions has declined for three successive seasons. Has the deal been as disastrous as the Mariners trade for Erik Bedard? There are some similarities to be certain since the biggest problem for both has been staying healthy. The Mariners gave up more to get Bedard while the Seahawks ponied up an open-market value contract in acquiring Branch.
With the second and third lines, O'Neil conflates the player acquired with that given to acquire him. This is illogical. The Seattle Mariners traded a blue chip prospect, a relief ace and three of its best pitching prospects for Bedard. In football terms, that would be like Seattle trading a top ten pick but paying 90% of the salary, Jordan Babineaux and three mid-round picks for Branch. That trade, like Bill Bavasi's trade for Bedard, would have been a failure upon completion. Bedard could not have lived up to the value of his trade and Branch could not have lived up to a similarly outlandish trade. But neither player should be blamed for the moves of their general manager. Bedard did not request the Mariners cripple their franchise to attain him. Bavasi insisted.
Branch has disappointed, but the trade made sense when it was made and is by no means burdensome now. His performance has compared to a receiver selected with that same pick. A few months ago I wrote:
Using the model provided by Advanced NFL Stats, we can make a reasonable guess. Branch would have been the fourth wide receiver drafted. The fourth wide receiver drafted's career averages about 530 yards per season and 4.7 seasons starting. Branch has averaged 599 yards per season over 32 starts and 33 games played. That 33 is of a possible 46. Branch was traded on September 11, 2006 and not capable of playing until week three.
Here's a golden rule in journalism, the farther you get into the story, the less likely the content is to be read. Comparing Branch to Bedard in the headline is unfair to both players. Comparing Branch to Sysphus' boulder is a poor metaphor and casts Branch as an endless burden. Referencing George Bush's infamous mangling of "fool me once" is picking on two easy targets, and suggests Branch is in some way at fault for his injuries. The retelling of Branch's injuries is filler and the closer comparing Branch to Bedard absurd and inaccurate. That comparison, bookending the article, is the lasting one.
The regular season starts today. Let's let the games tell the story, and hold off on picking scapegoats until we need them.
0 recs |
99 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
IMHO....
Danny O’Neil is a hack. But that’s just my opinion, and like my asshole, it sometimes stinks.
by Hawkmain on Sep 10, 2009 3:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
*unless directed at Brian Russell
by aerozeppelin on Sep 10, 2009 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Still also false.
Brian Russell may be a lovely person. It would probably be neat to have a beer with him. I’d just rather he doesn’t start at safety for my football team.
by abender20 on Sep 10, 2009 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair to Bedard,
in the comparison, he was coming off one of the best seasons in the AL in recent memory. The two seasons prior, he had pitched 196 and 182 innings with 7.84 and 10.93 k/9 and a tRA+ of 115 and 142 (tops in the league that year).
Branch when we traded for him had never received for more than 1000 yards or 5 TDs. The NE system was nothing to write home about, but Branch wasn’t a Randy Moss type talent when we traded for him.
What would be interesting though, would be to look at Ruskell’s draft cheat sheet that year to see who he had listed as the top talent at the time of our pick. If it was Meriweather, then yes it was a bad trade, if it was Meachem, then it was a good trade. It’s not mentioned here, but I don’t buy the theory that Darrell Jackson would have been terrible for us if we had kept him. Sure he could have declined, but he wouldn’t be out of football like he is now (is he out of football?).
by LantermanC on Sep 10, 2009 3:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Just to clarify
I didn’t attack Bedard at all. Only the trade.
by John Morgan on Sep 10, 2009 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh I know.
I just meant that while both Bedard and Branch are solidly above average, Bedard was in another tier of performers with his most recent performance. Though yes you are correct, the thought process to trade for Bedard was much harder to justify than the thought process for Branch was.
by LantermanC on Sep 10, 2009 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well said, and I don't particularly take issue with the comparison.
I’ve made the comparison before myself.
Bedard cost us:
A former late first round player who was major league ready (currently worth 2.0 WAR in 2009).
Some good pitching prospects, notably Tillman.
George Sherill.
Bedard’s arb years $. (expensive, but overall probably a pittance compared to what he would have received had he been a free agent signing that year).
Branch cost us:
- overall pick.
- WR contract $.
I won’t include Djack in the cost even though the Branch trade essentially sealed Djack’s fate.
Typically an MLB first round pick is not even as close to as valuable as an NFL 1st round pick (unless we are talking first 1-2 picks of the draft) for obvious reasons, but because Jones had served his time in the minors, was major league ready, and looking like a good ballplayer, I think its fairly equivalent to say that his value was fairly close to the value the Seahawks gave up with their #23 overall pick. Currently Jones is about a 2.0 WAR player in 2009 with Baltimore.
Money wise, Branch cost a lot more relative to his position, he was paid like a #1 WR, but Bedard was in his arb years making a fraction of his worth. Even with all the injuries, Bedard probably totaled enough WAR in his two years here to justify his salary. The same can’t be said for Branch.
Where the Bedard trade separates itself is in the secondary throw ins to the deal. Chris Tillman by himself was a valuable prospect who wasn’t a guarantee to produce but had star potential. If I had to use current Seahawks, it would be like the Seahawks tossing in a guy like Red Bryant or David Hawthorne. To use non-current Seahawks, probably the best comparison would be when the Seahawks gave away Ahman Green to acquire a scrub CB.
George Sherill was no slouch either, he was arguably the Mariners most consistent reliever at the time he was traded, a dominant lefty specialist who was even getting righties out in his last Seattle season. Granted, good bullpen pitchers can be found relatively easily and on the cheap, but that didn’t change the fact that Sherill was a damn good reliever.
In terms of what they gave up, the Mariners gave up more than the Seahawks gave up, but in relative terms took on less money. Also, what they gained in Bedard was a lot more than what Seattle gained in Branch, if both were healthy. True, top of the rotation starting pitching is at a premium in the MLB, its probably over-rated but pitchers of Bedard’s caliber typically require a kings ransom to acquire and Bedard was no exception. By contrast, Branch was a solid #2 WR who wanted to be overpaid. Both were unhealthy, but both actually played pretty well when they did play. Branch was productive in 2006 and when healthy in 2008. Bedard was amazing this season before injuries finally did him in.
The Bedard trade was worse, because with two trades that didn’t work out, the worse of the two is going to be the one that cost more, and the Bedard trade cost more. That said, I don’t think its crazy at all to compare these trades, as they have a lot in common.
I’m a huge fan of your’s John and I love when you go on a tear against someone, but I think in this case you were nitpicking and reaching a little bit. The article wasn’t so bad, and if I was a writer, I probably would have written something along the same lines he did on tihs subject.
by kearly on Sep 10, 2009 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The one thing these two trades have in common is that the results were bad.
Please, read this.
The big problem with this article was that it evaluated these trades in hindsight, which isn’t fair to the players and, in the case of the Branch trade, to Ruskell.
by BrianL on Sep 10, 2009 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even results based analysis shows there is no comparison between the trades
Bedard was worth exactly 3.0 WAR with Seattle. Jones has been worth 3.8 WAR with the Orioles and just turned 24. Taking into account Mikolio, Tillman, and Butler along with things like years of team control makes the deal even more lopsided. Meanwhile Branch has already outproduced what could be expected from a receiver drafted with the pick that was traded away. There is no comparison between the Bedard trade and the Branch trade.
Also DJack was traded because of contract promises that were made to him by the previous FO that Ruskell did not plan to keep. It’s likely that the decision to cut ties with Jackson had been made and Branch was who they decided to replace him with.
by Nate Dogg on Sep 10, 2009 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand what the problem with hindsight is
In the narrow restriction of evaluating whether the trades were good or not, fine. O’Neil’s post to me was a pulse check on the fan base. Now that the results have proven poor, how do people feel? That’s not the same as revisionist prognosticating.
by jacobstevens on Sep 11, 2009 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hindsight really is only useful in evaluating the result, not the thinking that went into the trade.
That’s a difficult concept for a lot of people to grasp. Using the oft-cited Mariners Freddy Garcia trade as an example:
The trade result ended up terrible. Miguel Olivo couldn’t hit, Jeremy Reed turned into a quintessential AAAA player, and Mike Morse amounted to nothing more than a lousy-fielding reserve. The process going into the trade was sound. At the time, Olivo was regarded as being a catcher with a decent ceiling, Reed was the top prospect in the White Sox organization, and Morse was interesting filler. That trade all sorts of sense and looked really good. The fact that none of the players panned out doesn’t make it a bad trade, it just means that the results were bad.
I guess I’m advocating for people to separate the result of a trade from the process of making the trade itself.
by BrianL on Sep 11, 2009 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, I'm with you
Any successful prognosticators on record for being against a trade for specific reasons that come to fruition earn argumentative capitol to scorn. Not having record nor success on any, I’m not among them.
by jacobstevens on Sep 11, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Woah woah woah.
Morse and Reed can still be good players. They just need more playing time.
by LantermanC on Sep 11, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with the idea that evaluating trades in hindsight has problems
The Garcia trade is a good example of that. (btw I’ve checked USSM almost every day since 2002, I know all about it)
However, I didn’t like the Branch trade even when it happened and it turned out worse than I expected. I think both trades were bad moves the second they were made.
The Bedard trade is self explanatory. Dave at USSM made a post the day of the trade explaining that even if Bedard stayed healthy and played well, Jones would be worth more WAR in the long run just by himself. The Bedard trade was so bad that its made an impact on the MLB trade market for two years now. The Jays couldn’t move Roy Halliday for example, and the Indians had to shop Cliff Lee forever before sending him to Philly.
To explain my position at the time of the Branch trade.
Unless its for an elite player at a premium position (QB, DE, CB, etc), I’m generally not in favor of trading first round picks for veterans. Probably the only two trades I’ve seen any team make in recent years that involved a veteran and a 1st round pick that I liked: The Bears trading for Jay Cutler and the Vikings trading for Jared Allen. Those are difference making players at premium positions that more than justify a 1st round pick (+ more) in return. WR is not a premium position, and Branch was never an elite WR, never ranking high in just about any WR metric, unless you count being a stud in the superbowl. Even if Branch had been a free agent and cost no draft pick, I would have hesitated to sign him just on the grounds that he would be significantly overpaid, much less cough up a 1st.
-Branch was on paper a good fit for a WCO because of his agility, but I even back then I was skeptical he would mesh with Hasselbeck, who has always preferred bigger, more physical receivers. He was coming off a year where his two favorite targets were Joe Jurevicius and Jerramy Stevens. Its no surprise, to me, that Branch has looked at his best in Seattle with Wallace throwing to him.
-Branch had injury issues pre-2006. Not as bad as post-2006, but like Bedard, injury concerns had been in his past pre-trade.
My comment is that we shouldn’t crucify a guy for comparing two trades that had a ton in common. Its not like he said the Branch trade was worse, just saying that the Branch trade was “the Bedard trade” of the Ruskell admin. Its not perfectly analogous, but analogies are not really meant to be perfect. Its close enough for me not to call him crazy.
by kearly on Sep 11, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please ignore the strikethru. I honestly have no idea how that happened.
by kearly on Sep 11, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That...
happened to me a while back with a random group of strikethroughs.. quite odd.
Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.
by whiskey chainsaw on Sep 12, 2009 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Normally I like O'neil...
Danny has done this town wrong with this article. This would have been different if someone from another teams publication wrote it but they didn’t. You can be critical of a players abilities but not injuries. Unless he “fell” and broke his hand.
I think Branch hasn’t been as reliable as I would have hoped for what we gave up to get him, but I agree that it is not his fault.
that was rough….good response article John.
by durteehawk on Sep 10, 2009 3:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That entire O'Neil blog entry was just awful.
Branch has disappointed, but the trade made sense when it was made and is by no means burdensome now. His performance has compared to a receiver selected with that same pick.
This is such an important point that is lost on many. Trades should be evaluated based on what we knew at the time. Though this was written for a baseball blog, USSM’s Evaluating Trades post should be required reading for everyone in every sport.
by BrianL on Sep 10, 2009 3:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
For the record,
the M’s traded TWO blue chip prospects, not one, PLUS the relief ace and two solid pitching prospects.
I hate that this is what it took to get Bavasi fired, but I do believe this will FAR SURPASS Slocumb for Veritek/Lowe, or any of the other horrible and lopsided trades in MLB history.
Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.
by whiskey chainsaw on Sep 10, 2009 3:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't know, Tillman's young and already in the league,
but I have a ‘feeling’ (so scientific, I know) that he’ll just be a #3. And obviously there’s a lot of value in a free #3 and a fringe all-star CF for 6 years time, as well as 4 years of a relief ace, Bedard had the potential to give over $60 million dollars worth of value over 2 seasons. Slocumb was just a relief pitcher.
by LantermanC on Sep 10, 2009 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bedard was worth $22.2 million in 2007
He never had a chance to be worth $60 million over two seasons.
Adam Jones is an All-Star and at 23.
by John Morgan on Sep 10, 2009 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention...
the time under team contract in addition to the young age and immense talent. UGH.
Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.
by whiskey chainsaw on Sep 10, 2009 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lincecum's tRA+ in 2008 was 141, he was worth $33.9 million.
Bedard’s was 142 in 2007.
Not saying it’s a sure thing, but it was possible.
Adam Jones, while an all-star, is possibly worth less now (this season) then he was at the all star break. Sure he’s good, but as of now, he’s only a $10 million dollar per year player (not ruling out the possibility of him becoming a $20 million dollar per year player though).
by LantermanC on Sep 10, 2009 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Using tRA+ and ignoring innings pitched is deceptive.
by John Morgan on Sep 10, 2009 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True, but I said potential because you can argue that
the GM expected him to surpass the 200 ip barrier because it does take some guys some time to build up their innings. Not probable, but not impossible either.
by LantermanC on Sep 10, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Given his injury history
I think it was very unlikely.
by John Morgan on Sep 10, 2009 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed,
I think Bavasi just looked at the K/9 rate, the 190 ip average for the past two years and the inflated win total and lost his mind.
by LantermanC on Sep 10, 2009 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's also something to be said for the position of trading what looks like a safe average risk value
for the absolute maximum upside value.
by abender20 on Sep 10, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And banking the mixed-portfolio value against one single pitcher (and pitchers value is wildly erratic given injury problems)
is nutso.
by abender20 on Sep 10, 2009 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
It’s like Bavasi was thinking, hey look Google is at all time high, let’s liquidate half of our portfolio, which consists of an S&P index fund, t-bills, and foreign investments and get Google now in case they decide to pay out a large amount of dividends or make an amazing technological advance in the next two years, but oh yeah, Google has a large lawsuit on their hands and if it goes through their stock price could plummet. Oh by the way, Google has a poor history with winning lawsuits and technology as a sector is the wildly unpredictable in the near future.
by LantermanC on Sep 10, 2009 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
metaphor....breaking...down...
bail out!
by timlin45 on Sep 10, 2009 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that
was really a titanic of a train wreck.
Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.
by whiskey chainsaw on Sep 10, 2009 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His upside is incredibly high. He'll be a number 3...
the same way Petite was often times a number 3. Only a 3 because two other guys on his team happen to be even better. Regardless, a 3rd in rotation starter IS a blue-chip prospect. 4th/5th are fungible, but 3’s and better are not, and are a cut above. Most of what I’ve seen put him in an upper high 2 starter, or a low 1 level starter.
Regardless, it’s semantics. We’re still comparing a relatively solid trade in the NFL with the worst trade in MLB history.
Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.
by whiskey chainsaw on Sep 10, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dont see how Branch has disappointed.
I’ve been disappointed that he has been injured and unable to contribute more, but thats not the same. I dont think anyone would say he meant to be injured or that he somehow was at fault for his injury. Not like he slipped on a bag of McDonalds and put his arm through the TV, or played helmetless pattycake with a Chrysler on his motorcycle.
Classic example of a writer finding something to write about cause there’s no real story available and they dont have the mandate or wherewithal to break down schemes for us while we wait for some real news.
Thats why I come here ten times a day rather than bother to read the ‘real’ media. I know if there’s something going on, it’ll make it here with more concise information in no time.
by Strictnine on Sep 10, 2009 3:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Good write up
I thought this post was a good write up on player value. It was lucid and fun. I’ll be honest, sometimes I get lost in your play by play breakdowns, but I guess that tells more about me than anything else. Still, I would like to see more articles like this if you could. I come to this site everyday and appreciate every thing you do.
thanks
by Havik on Sep 10, 2009 3:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Reminds me of my first week as a writer for FG.
by abender20 on Sep 10, 2009 3:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If I had any tact, that could have been my finest piece of work.
Alas…
by abender20 on Sep 10, 2009 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are privileges to not having your name on the side of the building.
Me? I just work here.
by abender20 on Sep 10, 2009 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I should change my name to HawkBlaster
and start ripping new aholes.
by John Morgan on Sep 10, 2009 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I miss Art Thiel
Thankfully the Hawks picked up Farnesworth.
by timlin45 on Sep 10, 2009 3:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Why would you miss him? Some of his articles are still on the P-I
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 10, 2009 9:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This last paragraph is pure genius.
Here’s a golden rule in journalism, the farther you get into the story, the less likely the content is to be read. Comparing Branch to Bedard in the headline is unfair to both players. Comparing Branch to Sysphus’ boulder is a poor metaphor and casts Branch as an endless burden. Referencing George Bush’s infamous mangling of “fool me once” is picking on two easy targets, and suggests Branch is in some way at fault for his injuries. The retelling of Branch’s injuries is filler and the closer comparing Branch to Bedard absurd and inaccurate. That comparison, bookending the article, is the lasting one.
I didn’t even read the golden rule until the second time reading this, because it was at the end of the post. Then there’s some Greek mythology and some politics in there to boot.
by LantermanC on Sep 10, 2009 3:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think it's valid to compare Branch to Bedard
In terms of their possible legacies on the local sports scene. They both arrived via expensive trade, to high expectations, hopeful missing pieces of contending teams; both have flashed tantalizing talent but neither has been able to stay healthy…
But the general point was lost under a pile of weird metaphors and wordiness, I thought. Danny’s a good reporter but this post was a bit hard to follow.
by busplunger on Sep 10, 2009 4:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
But neither player is at blame for any of that
Nowhere in the article does the name Tim Ruskell or Bill Bavasi appear.
by John Morgan on Sep 10, 2009 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As you pointed out above, he's not blaming Branch for his injuries
The post is about fan expectations and the injuries that have frustrated both Branch’s Seahawk career and fans.
Maybe I disagree slightly with the idea that this was an unfair jab at Branch and Ruskell, but it’s hard to say what Danny is talking about since he dropped a bunch of Sisyphus chaff in there to keep us off his tail.
by busplunger on Sep 10, 2009 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not even close Danny
Branch has been hurt and that’s really been a bummer. Bedard has been hurt as well, but at least Branch has been cordial to those around him in the media, as well as to his teammates. Bedard may be a decent teammate, but he’s reportedly been a turd to reporters (perhaps fairly?).
Branch is in a good spot this year, where he’ll likely compete for playing time as the 3rd WR or as a backup starter. The Hawks are no longer relying on him to be the playmaking starting WR. Funny- he never has been that on a consistent basis. He was great as a 3rd WR for that Patriots (with David Patten and David Givens), then when thrust into a starting role wanted to be paid better. The Pats knew he wasn’t worth #1 WR money, so they traded him to Seattle, who obviously valued him at a higher level. Sure, he’s been nicked and its sad. But No farm was given for him.
by Section 128 on Sep 10, 2009 4:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
No farm, perhaps...
Just a first round pick.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 10, 2009 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe it's because I'm not thinking clearly due to these prescription meds, but
I don’t see what the big deal is. Both Bedard and Branch have been injury-prone disappointments, and are perhaps mildly overly derided by fans due to the resources given up for them. Both are talented athletes when healthy, but are rarely so, and that’s probably what frustrates people.
Although the Branch trade was probably far better than the Bedard one. A healthy Bedard is a far better pitcher than a healthy Branch a receiver, but at least Branch doesn’t give off this impression that he’s a colossal douchebag ready to high-tail it out of Seattle a.s.a.p
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 10, 2009 5:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Your version of reality is terrifying.
by John Morgan on Sep 10, 2009 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sure, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that.
But I really don’t understand what the issue is. On a surface level, both share the fact in common that they are failed trades.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 10, 2009 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Looking at trades in hindsight is a terrible way to evaluate them.
It’s results-based and completely ignores the process. Paul DePodesta had had a fantastic writeup that covered looking at processes and their outcomes.
by BrianL on Sep 10, 2009 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope you aren't offended if I wait until tomorrow to read that.
I’m not disagreeing with the process, I’m saying the end-result obviously wasn’t what was desired.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 10, 2009 10:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course the end result wasn't what was desired.
That said, O’Neil, the rest of the media, and fans are wrong to heap scorn onto Bedard and Branch for things that were well outside of their control. It’s perfectly acceptable to be upset that things didn’t work out as planned. We’re all fans of these teams and we want terribly for things to go well.
It’s not acceptable to place blame and scorn on the players in these situations.
by BrianL on Sep 10, 2009 10:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I see what you're saying.
I agree.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 11, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the scorn you guys are assuming such an adversarial role against
is a bit imagined. I’m sure tons of people have been dipping their balls in a big bowl of scorn for these trades and players and GMs, but I’m not getting that from O’Neil, and as pointed out before, I am getting that from some portion of the fanbase in aggregate with his attitude. I dunno if you can separate the two factors, but anyway, sure scorn is misplaced, but is it so rampant? This retort and discussion feels like its taken the view of a beacon of reason in a sea of scornful fans, but I don’t even feel like that’s the consensus out there.
I realize that’s an arbitrary assessment, and who can accurately gauge consensus on such a thing?
by jacobstevens on Sep 11, 2009 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are many fans who are angry at Branch and Bedard for being injured.
Bedard in particular has been treated terribly by the media and fans, who have called his toughness and manhood into question because he’s got a bum shoulder or because he comes out of games at around 100 pitches.
As for O’Neil, he’s the one who likened Branch to Sisyphus’ boulder and used the “fool me once…” line. It’s pretty clear that’s directed straight at Deion.
by BrianL on Sep 11, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not unhappy with the player for injuries
I’m unhappy with the FO for keeping them around when they have chronic injuries. A chronicially injured player is a burden to a team that slows down team development whether it’s an O-lineman who can’t practice or a receiver who develops no timing with the QB. It’s a ton of money spent on a player who keeps his job based on “potential” rather than results. It ends up being a time sync and a wasted roster spot and resources we could have spent elsewhere.
The reason I’m not as down on Branch is because Branch has truly had bad luck. Branch already proved he could play in this league and had stayed nearly injury free prior to his arrival in Seattle. He has through bad luck had a series of serious injuries that have limited his production.
This is the last year I would give him to prove he can endure playing in this league. Durability is a huge factor in NFL success. If you can’t endure the NFL, a team can’t be expected to carry that kind of dead weight on their roster.
Some players can’t endure the NFL. It’s why injury history is highly considered when drafting and in FA. Injury prone players are a drain on their teams resources because they cost money for minimal production. If you have too many such players on your team, they will drag down your roster….especially if they are starters.
by ASeahawkfan on Sep 11, 2009 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the process was good on one trade and bad on the other
The Bedard trade failed the second it was made, the Branch trade has only disappointed because of his injuries.
Also that DePodesta post is completely broken down into a little table chart thats fantastic and takes 2 seconds to read.
by Nate Dogg on Sep 10, 2009 10:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The table I post too often in response to these kind of posts
And while the Bedard trade was a failure the moment it happened, that still doesn’t make it fair or acceptable to blame Bedard for it.
by BrianL on Sep 10, 2009 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Bedard trade had basically zero chance of even ending up in the dumb luck box
by Nate Dogg on Sep 10, 2009 10:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh...
If Adam Jones turned into Lastings Milledge/Delmon Young/Chris Young, (I tried to think of a white guy that fit the mold but couldn’t), Tillman blew his arm out, and Sherrill was JUST a LOOGY, and Bedard just stayed healthy for his two years, It would be a dumb luck win.
by LantermanC on Sep 11, 2009 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How so?
Granted the odds of Lantern’s scenario panning out that way is probably 2%, but under that scenario, it would be a dumb luck win.
I think it was a backhanded way of conceding that it wasn’t a smart trade with much chance of success.
by kearly on Sep 11, 2009 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair market value
It’s what it’s all about. Getting back to the trade, fair market value for a mid tier receiver, like Branch (let’s not kid ourselves – he’s nothing more than mid tier), is not a first round draft choice. What was Randy Moss traded for less than a year later again?
Bellicheck took us to school. That trade was abysmal.
by stallz on Sep 10, 2009 8:23 PM PDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
`
Using the model provided by Advanced NFL Stats, we can make a reasonable guess. Branch would have been the fourth wide receiver drafted. The fourth wide receiver drafted’s career averages about 530 yards per season and 4.7 seasons starting. Branch has averaged 599 yards per season over 32 starts and 33 games played. That 33 is of a possible 46. Branch was traded on September 11, 2006 and not capable of playing until week three.
by BrianL on Sep 10, 2009 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So yes, that trade was fair market value.
by BrianL on Sep 10, 2009 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also the Moss comparison is off base
Moss was 30, coming off an injury year, a low production year for Moss and most recently a complete disaster of a season for any receiver. He also had character concerns and many people thought he’d lost much of his speed. Branch was 27, coming off his most productive year and was a season removed from winning the Super Bowl MVP.
The Seahawks were buying high on Branch while the Patriots were taking a flyer on Moss.
by Nate Dogg on Sep 10, 2009 9:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Randy Moss also had elite talent.
Deion Branch does not. A lot of people also knew that if Randy Moss really wanted to, when he plays his ass off, he could still dominate a game. I think the real reason his attitude got a lot of press was because stopped playing hard. To me, he gave up because he thought wanted to play for a winning team, not for a franchise that was in complete disarray when it came to winning games. He hasn’t made the news at all except for his outstanding play in the regular season since he went to the Patriots.
The only reasons why the Seahawks paid as much as they did, was because they entered a bidding war with the Jets for Branch’s services, and also it’s because a player’s stock goes up far before the draft, while their stock drops when the draft draws much closer. I wanted Branch on the team, but I did not, and still do not, to this day, agree with giving up a first round draft pick for him.
That said, I feel for Deion Branch. I think it’s much more frustrating for him than it is for the fans.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 10, 2009 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have no problems with having given up a first round pick and the quote above illustrates why.
It made sense at the time, and that’s all that matters.
by BrianL on Sep 10, 2009 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Still a sucker trade...
Branch already had 4 seasons as a starter, averaging 686 yds/yr before we paid for him.
On top of the that, we paid him like a #1 receiver, so we gave up the high pick and then paid like he was the #1 WR in the draft.
The Pats were in a bind with him, and we bailed them out (-just like we bailed out the Cards years earlier with Stouffer). The only other offer being reported for Branch was the Jets offer of a 2nd. That’s what we should have offered. We could even have offerred to deliver them a pick higher than the Jets 2nd round pick, but not our own 1st (unless we were picking 32 and the Jets 33). As it turned out, our own 2nd WAS higher than NYJ’s second.
That’s my biggest problem with the trade… Ruskell did NOT read the situation very well. I think he acted out of either pressure or emotion (DJack)…
At least he’s made up some ground with the Denver trade.
by Kryten on Sep 11, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The writing was on the wall with Jackson before the trade was made.
In the end, we still paid a fair-market price for Branch. I’m not upset at the process, sometimes things just don’t work out.
by BrianL on Sep 11, 2009 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For all the talk about the writing being on the wall
Ruskell could have ended it at any time had he honored his predecessors verbal promise and ponied up an extra ~1 mill a year to keep a guy who was, for all his faults, the most productive Seahawks WR of all time not named Steve Largent. I would have MUCH rather spent pennies on the dollar to keep Djack around (and the 1st rounder) than spend $6 million a year for a #2 WR.
I get that Ruskell wanted to look tough and didn’t want to set a bad pressitant(sp?) for future whining players, but I think more than anything, he overvalued drops while undervaluing production, and probably couldn’t wait to get rid of the guy.
by kearly on Sep 11, 2009 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it was a sucker trade
We were not looking for a #1 receiver when we picked up Branch. We were looking for a piece to help us win the Super Bowl. Branch had proven himself in the biggest game that you can play in as an NFL player. And we paid him because we thought were a receiver like Branch away from obtaining a Super Bowl.
Alot of our big playoff games failed because of bad hands. A bad route run in 2004 playoffs. 2005 Super Bowl Jerramy Stevens, D-Jack, and all our receiving corps failing to step up to beat Pittsburgh. It’s a series of unfortunate circumstances that Branch has never produced like he did for New England, but the trade itself was a solid move to bolster a shaky receiving corps and improve Matt’s weapons.
It is a testament to how good Matt is that he was able to get so much out of guys that are now not even in the NFL such as D-Jack and D-Hack and guys that are so bad their teams felt the need to trade to get upgrades like Jerramy Stevens in Tampa Bay. I just wish I wasn’t so paranoid about TJ coming here and suddently becoming an injury problem. We seem like such a cursed town when it comes to sports.
by ASeahawkfan on Sep 11, 2009 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a good argument...
and helps explain TR’s motivation, but I still think he misread NE’s need to resolve the situation. Branch was holding out, and said he would have stayed out all season. Seems we took the role of the desperate and gave whatever we had to to get Branch.
To me, it was a sucker deal. Just like the latest trade NE made with Oak. Although with the Radiers, the guy on top of their draft board will probably be available when they pick in round two. (let that sink in)
I was actually enjoying the holdout drama in NE before we stepped in to save the day. Just like I’m enjoying the Crabtree situation.
by Kryten on Sep 11, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know
A mid to late first round pick for an accomplished receiver. I think it was a fair deal that only injury caused to fail.
When Branch is on the field, he is a dangerous threat. He averaged 50 yards a game for us in 2008 and has had productive seasons. When he is on the field and healthy, defenses must account for him. He has has averaged 4 tds a year since he’s been here. That’s about 6% of our scoring output give or take a few percentage points. We don’t know if that production would come from elsewhere.
All I really care about is having Branch for the playoffs. That’s when he will earn his pay. If helps us win here and there during the regular season, great. But I really hope he is ready if we make it to the playoffs. Then our receiviing corps can step up and dominate.
by ASeahawkfan on Sep 13, 2009 12:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure I buy that Branch was traded for as a #2
Seattle already had a ton of #2/#3 guys, Djack, Engram, Burleson, and Hackett.
Granted, it was silly to think, even coming off Branch’s “best” season (which wasn’t even 1000 yards and only 5 TD) that he was a true #1. His career numbers were a step below Djack’s. However, Seattle was deep at WR and did not need another #2, they needed a #1. And they paid a #1 WR price when they acquired him.
by kearly on Sep 11, 2009 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Post-season production is huge in the NFL
You can make it through the regular season with a few of your top horses not playing well or injured. But the post-season is a different animal. Everyone is stepping up and you want someone who can step up. Branch had proven he could step up in the post-season. He had good regular season production and great post-season production. We paid for that post-season production, though we never got it.
All it would take to pay Branch’s contract (or any player for that matter) is one stellar post-season that ends in a Super Bowl. Even Curry’s contract would be paid if won one Super Bowl and he was an important part of that.
by ASeahawkfan on Sep 13, 2009 12:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Randy Moss was a special case
Before he went to NE, he was like TO’s evil twin.
Brett Favre is the Kenny Powers of football.
by ninjasocks on Sep 10, 2009 8:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
An appropriate retort.
These guys are damned if they do damned if they don’t. Pitching and playing in the NFL are both incredibly hard on the body by subjecting it to extreme repeated unnatural forces. Most guys don’t hold up like Walter Payton or Greg Maddux.
You can try to play through it even though your abilities are diminished and the results usually show this. Doing this makes you a ‘bust’.
Alternately, you can not play through it. Doing this leads to questions about your manhood.
No player is responsible for what an organization chooses to give up in order to acquire him. Never mind that these two trades aren’t even close to comparable in this regard either.
Mike Scioscia is fat.
by Big Jared on Sep 10, 2009 8:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The way I see all this
is just like a lack of ability to compete at this highest of level, injuries are out of the player’s control. Some players are more injury prone, and I have a lot of empathy for them, but I think fans have every right to be disappointed and I see nothing wrong with it. A lack of tact in fan response is fair game, but questioning whether we have prerogative to be disappointed, I just don’t get. We want players to contribute, and we want potential to be realized. When it’s not, are we to simply shrug? It’s cathartic. Lots of us take it way too far, though. It’s become the paradigm of sports media/blog/fandom, by and large, unfortunately. But like I said, the lack of tact is fair game.
I see no blame being placed in the article, really. I don’t even have a problem with the Sisyphus metaphor. It’s mildly strained, but ultimately the gyst of the myth is being tantalized by a repeating burden. An expensive trade, a talented player who’s been injured most of their tenure with the team. The comparison is fairly natural.
by jacobstevens on Sep 10, 2009 9:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Fans have a right to be disappointed and upset at the player, just like I have a right to call them out for not being rational.
We want players to contribute, and we want potential to be realized. When it’s not, are we to simply shrug? It’s cathartic. Lots of us take it way too far, though. It’s become the paradigm of sports media/blog/fandom, by and large, unfortunately.
You’re making it sound like looking at these trades and the players rationally is bad for the sport or makes you some sort of a lesser fan.
I’m not just shrugging at the lack of production we’ve gotten from Branch or Bedard since we traded for them. I’m very disappointed that they haven’t been able to stay healthy and put up great numbers to help their teams. The only difference is I’m not directing that disappointment towards the individual players, who don’t deserve the scorn being heaped upon them.
In the case of the Bedard trade, I’m extremely upset with Bill Bavasi who did not recognize that his team was very good and traded the farm for a pitcher with great stuff but a significant injury history. In the case of the Branch trade, I’m simply upset at fate. We made a trade that made sense, but it didn’t pan out because of injury.
I’m plenty upset that these things didn’t work out, but I’m not going to aim that at the players. Not directing rage/anger/vitriol at a player who hasn’t performed in these circumstances doesn’t make someone a cathartic fan. It makes them a fan who can look at the bigger picture and can identify where blame (if blame is to be placed) should be directed. Sometimes, no blame can be placed and you’re simply reduced to cursing bad luck.
Every one of us is just as disappointed over the results of these trades as any other fan. Nothing obligates us to direct that disappointment at whoever the media tells us to.
by BrianL on Sep 10, 2009 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, I am often not clear
I meant to say: there’s no issue in venting frustrations when these things don’t work out. It’s cathartic. But surely, lots of fans go too far — the scorn. The scorn is not called for, I am with you there. Just not to the extent to suggest we have no call to react at all just because the results were at one time unknown.
Which, you’re not necessarily advocating, I’m sure, but the post and discussion here didn’t clarify anything of that nature, so I (poorly) described how I see it.
I stand probably unique on the Branch trade, in that I was unhappy with it, and am now moderately happy with it. I didn’t think we needed him, I didn’t like the handling of Jackson’s situation, I didn’t think Branch was nearly worth a late 1st.
Since then, I see that Ruskell made the trade for Holmgren in spite of his own approach and plan for personnel, which I give high marks, and I see that Branch really is capable of being a lot more than what I thought he could be, just hasn’t been healthy. I had no predictions of health, I just thought he’d be an average player. So I freely admit I was wrong on that trade.
by jacobstevens on Sep 11, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still want to give Branch another year
He seems to have lost some confidence. I’m hoping a healthy year or fairly healthy year will help him gain it back. He’s had some real bad luck with injuries and overall with his time in Seattle with him and Matt never really having a ton of playing time together. But he still has skills and has helped us win games.
I remember Chicago giving up on Bobby Engram after his ACL injury and he turned out to be a quality receiver for us. Maybe Branch will spring back to life this year.
I’ll always remember that play in Kansas City. Stripping the ball after an interception is a classic example of a Belichek coached receiver. I was very happy to obtain Branch and still hope he can produce for us. When he’s on the field, he makes plays. If he doesn’t stay healthy this year, we’ll probably let him go or at least rework his contract and let Deon Butler be our third guy. I think we’ll be clear what needs to be done with Branch by the end of this year.
by ASeahawkfan on Sep 10, 2009 10:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Why cant I remember who the Pats took with that
1st rd pick for Branch… would we trade Branch for that player right now?
Also remember isnt entirely probably we wouldnt have taken that player, but probably a too-small cornerback.
by Strictnine on Sep 11, 2009 1:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Brandon Merriweather
I still think a late 1st was a little high, but market value on draft picks is not static throughout the year, and the Patriots have a way of fleecing the league. Even when their backs are agains tthe wall with a holdout like his, apparently. So maybe a little high, but he’s shown he can be a super good player for us, I like him, and getting a player like that from them for a late 1st isn’t that bad.
by jacobstevens on Sep 11, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Patrick Chung is backing him up according to Yahoo! depth chart.
I hate the Pats.
by LantermanC on Sep 11, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Branch Deal Was Like the Bedard Deal, Only Worse
the implication of his piece “Deion Branch, the Erik Bedard of the Seahawks?” is that Branch is a burden and his acquisition a disaster.
The implication of this statement is that the Bedard trade was a disaster. I don’t know what the proper description is, probably not “disaster”, but the Branch deal certainly has many similarities to it, and almost certainly is more of a burden to the Seahawks than the Bedard situation is to the Mariners.
I agree that the Sisyphus metaphor is inappropriate. Moving on…
[Branch] has twice been Seattle’s second leading receiver, and once their third leading receiver.
Your standards are astoundingly low for an established player who cost a first round pick and $49 million. In fact, if Ruskell had told the world immediately after the deal that he expected Branch to be the team’s second and third leading receiver for the foreseeable future, averaging fewer receptions than Mike Furrey, he’d have been run out of town on a rail.
On a per game basis Branch has produced about like he did at New England. That is to say, when healthy he’s been a competent, above average receiver. That is to say, he would have been a very pricy acquisition even if he’d never missed a game. Add to that the fact that the Seahawks did not seriously address the position again until they were forced to cough up huge cap dollars once again for Houshmandzadeh. Very pricy indeed.
The Seattle Mariners traded a blue chip prospect, a relief ace and three of its best pitching prospects for Bedard. In football terms, that would be like Seattle trading a top ten pick but paying 90% of the salary, Jordan Babineaux and three mid-round picks for Branch.
Whoa. That one’s waaaaaaaaay wide to the right. The Seahawks gave up VASTLY more than did the Mariners. Scores of young players of the approximate abilities of what the Mariners gave up enter baseball every year. With the exception of Sherrill, who has already been shipped along by Baltimore for more “prospects”, none of them has accomplished anything in the Major Leagues yet, though of course the potential is still there. If none of them ever amount to anything nobody will particularly notice, because very few “prospects” ever turn out to be difference-makers in MLB. On the other hand, if either a first round draft pick or a high-priced free agent in the NFL, much less someone who is BOTH, never makes a difference you’ll remember it for decades.
Sherrill is a lefty relief specialist, something like a good gunner or nickle back in football terms. Jones is of a quality (he could still improve, of course) that the Mariners’ new management found relatively easy to replace, as they already have a center fielder who is young and probably better. None of the other pitchers has done anything yet. Finally, Bedard’s salary is what mediocre starters get, though he’s been excellent when healthy. Compare to Branch, who cost a first rounder plus star level cap money.
But neither player should be blamed for the moves of their general manager.
Agreed.
Bedard did not request the Mariners cripple their franchise to attain him.
Uh, that didn’t remotely happen.
Branch has disappointed, but the trade made sense when it was made
Perhaps, in the context of a “win now” move. I was participating in the Usenet group at the time, and I was the only one who had the remotest qualms about it at all. A player who costs such a huge amount needs to produce a lot, and quickly. Even assuming health it would have been difficult for a merely above average player to live up to a first round pick AND big cap money.
[Branch’s] performance has compared to a receiver selected with that same pick.
But he also cost a huge free agent contract.
by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Sep 14, 2009 11:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
