Castrovince's thoughts on Marte in latest mailbag

Castrovince speculates (note: not a rumor) about Marte's future with the Tribe in his latest mailbag:

The Indians have some roster moves approaching with the impending returns of Joe Borowski, Jake Westbrook and Shin-Soo Choo from the disabled list. If Marte survives all those moves, I'd be shocked.
...
I suspect the Tribe will go with five outfielders when Choo arrives (his rehab assignment will end June 3). That's why I made the above remark about Marte's tenuous spot on this roster.

2 months ago RachelAnn Comment 39 comments 0 recs |

Read Related

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Frankly, this is on Shapiro now. It’s fine to have an agreement that the manager makes most of the decisions with the active roster, but by not dissenting in this case, Shapiro is endorsing.

by tabler84 on May 20, 2008 9:04 AM EDT 0 recs

I don’t understand this whole thing about keeping Andy Marte around. They say they are holding onto him because they don’t want to let him go and then hear about him exploding elsewhere. What difference does it make? Remind me again what the point of holding onto him is.
—Kevin W., Lexington, Ohio

Egad. And you wonder why Wedge feels no pressure at all to play Andy. The majority of the fanbase likely agrees with him.

STAY STRONG LGT. DON”T GIVE UP THE MANNY MARTE FIGHT. Jay, are we getting close to the point where an LGT-drafted letter is in order? I just have a terrible feeling that this is going to end terribly.

by supermarioelia on May 20, 2008 9:31 AM EDT 0 recs

I think everyone on here actually agrees with this. There is no point to holding onto him if you’re not going to play him.

by gahnki on May 20, 2008 4:33 PM EDT up 0 recs

I also worry about how they’ll deal with Marte; dumping him makes little sense, though, unless there’s a trade because they have no real options at 3rd base for next year. I wonder how highly they actually value Choo. They may decide he’s the one to expose to being claimed, partly because he’s been hurt (as Jay has suggested), partly because they don’t need another outfielder (unless they can send Gutierrez down through some kind of magic or someone gets hurt), and partly because they may not think he’s as valuable in the long term as Marte. We’ll find out how they’ve evaluated Marte, I think, if and when Choo is “reactivated.” In the meantime, they may cook up a trade that will help them resolve some of these roster issues.

by peter m on May 20, 2008 10:21 AM EDT 0 recs

Andy Marte for Damaso Marte. That would just be fitting.

In an extremely shortsighted way it would actually help the team.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on May 20, 2008 10:31 AM EDT up 0 recs

by doing this we could FIRE MARTE (Andy), HIRE MARTE (Damaso) and FREE MARTE (from Pittsburgh)

Give Marte a Chance. FIRE SHELTON. Find Wedge a Hot Seat.

by westbrook on May 21, 2008 4:15 PM EDT up 0 recs

I think we have a duty until June 3rd to talk down Choo as much as possible so that he can sneak through.

“Man that Choo really sucks eh?”
“Yeah who could possibly want him.”
“He’s already struck out three times this year. Like c’mon.”
“Don’t forget that military service issue.”
“And having three names is just confusing.”
“And what the hell is the deal with his batting helmet?”
“I heard that he doesn’t bathe.”

Bottom line, you don’t want to pick up this guy. He’ll be a burden on your rosters, MLB GMs. Stay away.

by supermarioelia on May 20, 2008 10:42 AM EDT up 0 recs

Isn’t the military service issue a real non-joking potential problem?

by Fiddlesticks on May 20, 2008 11:00 AM EDT up 0 recs

Hmm, I actually agree with most of this.

by tabler84 on May 20, 2008 11:37 AM EDT up 0 recs

The batting helmet this is the worst for me. I mean, come on, this is the big leagues. What’s next, a face mask? If the guy’s that scared of getting hit at the plate, who’d want him anyway.

(Just doing my part. Pile on folks.)

"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.

by Harry Doyle on May 20, 2008 2:03 PM EDT up 0 recs

I wasn’t sure what you guys were talking about…

by dgcambridge on May 20, 2008 3:14 PM EDT up 0 recs

Trying again…

by dgcambridge on May 20, 2008 3:15 PM EDT up 0 recs

ugh

by Gradyforpresident on May 20, 2008 10:34 AM EDT 0 recs

I heard we could be trading for Garret Atkins.

Any legs to that rumor?

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on May 20, 2008 10:43 AM EDT 0 recs

Hey Anthony, how does this make any sense? And I mean in the short term roster sense? Dump Marte for Choo? That means Carroll is backing up 3rd, SS, and 2nd all by himself. I don’t see that happening.

Unless they pair it with another move, like flipping Aubrey for Barfield.

And that’s the other weird part of this Blake thing. A lot of his value is his ability to play multiple positions. But you kill that when he’s the everyday starting 3b. To put it another way, if this way really about Wedge liking Blake, he could keep him in the lineup everyday by just moving him around a bit.

by dgcambridge on May 20, 2008 11:12 AM EDT 1 recs

I agree, this makes no sense. Marte is going nowhere, at least not yet. They need a better backup then Carroll at 3B.

Blake is playing 3B, not because he is good, but because he is, as of today, better than any other option (Marte). And Marte is the best backup by far. I’m hoping for Hodges, but he is still far off.

by oxforddave on May 20, 2008 11:19 AM EDT up 0 recs

Oh, Carroll’s just fine as the 3B backup.

Remember who filled that role for a good portion of last year.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on May 20, 2008 11:25 AM EDT up 0 recs

No, he’s capable enough, just a weird roster setup. On the plus side, we’ve got 1b totally covered.

by dgcambridge on May 20, 2008 11:29 AM EDT up 0 recs

If someone good was playing 3B, Carroll is capable. If Blake is playing 3B, Carroll is not capable.

As for last year, Marte was stashed in the minors in case. Again, I think the only way Marte goes is if a trade is made for a 3Bman, or the FO feels that Hodges can hack it. Neither are on the horizon.

by oxforddave on May 20, 2008 12:05 PM EDT up 0 recs

I agree with the second part of what you say, but don’t get the first part, unless you mean that Carroll will never play 3b if Blake is the regular there (since he’s got a contractual requirement that he play every inning of every game unless he’s dead?).

by peter m on May 20, 2008 12:12 PM EDT up 0 recs

Dear everyone: Carroll is not capable of playing any position for any amount of time.

by tabler84 on May 20, 2008 12:18 PM EDT up 0 recs

Doesn’t matter what you or I think.

Management has shown by their roster decisions last year that they feel a guy of Carroll’s stature is capable of being a 3B backup.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on May 20, 2008 12:31 PM EDT up 0 recs

This is what you think management thinks.

by oxforddave on May 20, 2008 12:55 PM EDT up 0 recs

I just went a little cross-eyed.

by gte619n on May 20, 2008 1:47 PM EDT up 0 recs

There’s a difference between being a capable backup and a reasonable long-term depth option.

by Jay on May 20, 2008 3:47 PM EDT up 0 recs

Of course.

However, the entire link of responses is in regards to being the current backup, and in the short term.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on May 20, 2008 3:57 PM EDT up 0 recs

Hypothetical scenario: Tribe cuts Marte and he goes on to flourish much the way Brandon Phillips did. At that point you almost have to fire Wedge, right? Or is the responsibility much more on Shapiro?

by Roger Dorn on May 20, 2008 2:12 PM EDT 0 recs

So you fire Wedge because a player on another team is doing well?

Tough crowd.

by gahnki on May 20, 2008 4:36 PM EDT up 0 recs

No, you fire Wedge because he doesn’t play the most talented guys. If Marte succeeds elsewhere it is a major problem and only enhances Jay’s point about Blake being the coach’s pet.

by Roger Dorn on May 20, 2008 6:17 PM EDT up 0 recs

You don’t have to fire him, but if you are Shapiro you have to confront Wedge about it. At some point it becomes the manager being stubborn and/or wrong to the detriment of the team, both in the long and short term. Shapiro let Wedge have his way with Vazquez over BP. They are letting him have his way with Blake over Marte (for now), but to a lesser extent, bc they at least forced him to keep Marte on the roster.
if Marte ends up getting cut (something I actually find myself hoping for more and more, just for his sake) then it is entirely on Wedge for disastrously mishandling a second promising player behind whom there was minimal organizational depth. Marte’s Phillips-like success somewhere else would not cost him his job, but it should exhaust any goodwill or leeway he has from the front office, and it should be enough to make Shapiro change the degree to which he lets the manager make roster decisions at all going forward.

by mpstable on May 20, 2008 6:30 PM EDT up 0 recs

Thanks, this is the kind of answer I was looking for. I think it’s a serious issue and something i don’t want to be giving Wedge a pass on

by Roger Dorn on May 20, 2008 6:43 PM EDT up 0 recs

They won’t fire him for that. Lots of players go on to thrive for other teams after struggling elsewhere. But, the responsibility has to be Shapiro’s, if there is any. He makes the personnel decisions, not Wedge.

by peter m on May 20, 2008 2:41 PM EDT 0 recs