Hey, Mark: Cut the Crap
by Jay on Jun 24, 2009 10:30 AM EDT
in Analysis
Email
PrintMr. Mark Shapiro
Progressive Field
2401 Ontario St.
Cleveland, OH 44115
Dear Mark,
I'm writing you today with a serious concern, as a devoted fan of the Cleveland Indians. And to be honest, I'm also deeply concerned as a fan of Mark Shapiro. You've always presented a public image as a highly effective, intelligent, level-headed, and reasonable guy, and a class act, to boot.
So from one classy, reasonable guy to another, I really have to tell you, it is time for you to cut the crap. And by "the crap," I mean the public defense of your manager, Eric Wedge.
I understand that you think highly of Wedge. I understand that you're loyal and, like I said, a classy guy. But your loyalty towards Wedge has now become something quite disloyal and un-classy — to your bosses, to your organization, and to Indians fans everywhere. Life is tricky that way.
Let's start with the fans. Mark, this has been a brutal season. Just brutal. And I'm sure you know, it's even more brutal as one horrible disappointment coming right on the heels of the last horrible disappointment. In a season like this, how many Indians fans are interested in reading or hearing about your defense of Eric Wedge?
That's right, Mark, zero. Nobody wants to hear this crap, Mark, and nobody thinks you should be spending any of your time talking about it. Even if you're right — and you're not right, by the way, but let's not get off-track — even if you're right, Mark, nobody wants to hear it. Every time you defend Wedge, you're just spitting in the eye of every fan who's tired of losing, and you will never, ever convince even one fan that you're right about this.
And in a season like this, the fans' feelings need to be respected. I know you're not going to respect the fans' feelings in your decision-making — you never have, and I'm not saying you should start now — but at the very least, Mark — again, one reasonable, classy guy to another — you ought to respect the fans' feelings in your public statements. I'm one of those "intellectual bloggers," Mark, and even I'm saying, cut the crap.
On to your bosses, team owner Larry Dolan and team president Paul Dolan. On this issue, and for the first time in your tenure as GM that I can recall, you actually have been disloyal to your bosses and surprisingly un-classy. The Dolans are going to meet with you this week, or so we are told. There is going to be a "process of evaluation," and we are led to believe that one of the things being evaluated is the future of Wedge and his staff. Ultimately, they might decide Wedge needs to be fired — they might — and it's their right to decide that.
And yet, here you are — their subordinate — publicly lobbying for Wedge to keep his job, and poor-mouthing the notion that he (or any manager!) should be fired. In other words, you're criticizing the very decision that the Dolans may make next week! Here's what you told Peter Gammons (emphasis mine):
... our players have never stopped playing hard, never quit on him; there's been no back-biting or dissension and, frankly, we may have been in position to win games we shouldn't have. I think just firing the manager is a cop-out. Winning is an organizational result.
Here's the thing, Mark: the Dolans might eventually decide that Wedge ought to be fired — and yes, Mark, reasonable, well-intentioned people might actually believe that. And now, they'll have to publicly contradict their GM in order to do it. Tell me something, if they do fire him, have you given any thought to what you're going to say at the press conference?
Hey, you know that thing I said was a cop-out the other day? Firing the manager? Yeah, well, my bosses have told me to do that.
Right. So you've kind of put them in a corner on this. Not very loyal, and not very classy.
Finally, the team itself. Again, I understand that you feel very strongly about Wedge. I understand that he's been a partner in your process, a great team player. I understand that you feel he has truly extraordinary leadership qualities — what exactly those extraordinary qualities are, I'm not really clear on, but I do understand that you feel that he has them.
Here's the thing, though, Mark: Eric Wedge is not entitled to a lifetime appointment as manager of the Indians. There are many well qualified people who could do his job at least adequately, including at least two already in your employ, and Wedge doesn't deserve a never-ending trial run any more than they do. He doesn't get an indefinite free pass any more than MIke Hargrove did, any more than Charlie Manuel did.
You remember Charlie Manuel, right? Perfectly good manager. Didn't really do anything wrong. You fired him anyway, apparently believing, "Eh, I think maybe somebody else can do better." You didn't really seem to need any better reason than that, and Manuel was in just his third season. And I think you're a classy enough to guy to concede, Mark, that it turns out the Charlie Manuel is a pretty decent big-league manager after all. And I'm a classy enough guy to concede that you weren't necessarily wrong for firing him. After all, nobody is entitled to a lifetime appointment, and you thought you could do better — that's good enough for me.
But now it's Wedge on the hot seat. Your hire, your partner, but that shouldn't change anything. After three disappointing seasons out of four, Mark, don't you have to admit that it's possible that maybe — maybe — somebody else could do better?
It's possible, right? Possible?
Say it with me, Mark: It's possible.
So cut the crap, Mark. Enough with the excuses. I know all about the injuries, but Grady and Asdrubal have only missed 20 games, not 100, not even 50. And as for the rotation, what's happened there is pretty much what we expected when the season started. Be honest — the fact that either one of Pavano and Reyes is still in the rotation and pitching decently is better than anyone assumed would unfold. And be honest — you didn't really expect Scott Lewis to remain healthy and effective all season, and if it weren't for roster issues, Huff would have started the season in Cleveland ahead of Lewis anyway.
So the rotation problems really come down to Carmona, and Carmona's failures aren't a result of bad luck. Working with Carmona, reaching Carmona, righting Carmona, was the responsibility of Wedge and his staff. And they failed, Mark. They couldn't fix Carmona, just as they haven't been able to fix a half-dozen other disappointing players, like Garko, Francisco and Shoppach. It's now going on four years of failure to get Jhonny Peralta to focus consistently on doing his job. For a manager whose best asset is supposed to be his sterling leadership, what does that say?
I asked a couple days, ago, and I'll ask it again: Exactly which players have been helped by Wedge's purportedly great leadership? Guys like Sizemore or Martinez, who are so famously self-motivated? Veterans like Dellucci and Blake, who were so famously great teammates with great professionalism and great approaches? If not them, and if not our younger, struggling players ... then who?
And getting back to that quote you gave Gammons: "... our players have never stopped playing hard, never quit on him ..."
Is that it, Mark? That's the big deal about this guy? That these players — most of whom are competing for playing time and/or a 2010 contract — have continued to do their jobs, rather than deciding not to do their jobs anymore?
Here's another one: "I believe no one cares more about these players and this organization than Eric Wedge. I feel strongly he's making every effort to move this in a positive direction."
Is that it? He cares a lot and tries hard? Seriously?
Time to face facts, Mark. Whatever exceptional qualities you have observed in Eric Wedge, after six and a half years, there is little if any evidence that those qualities have ever really helped the Indians win ballgames. It is an insult to a guy like Joel Skinner to suggest that Eric Wedge has been anything special as a manager. It's an insult to the whole organization, and it's an insult to the fans.
Comments like that demonstrate that you're loyal to your troops, yes, but they also suggest strongly that you're a little too close to the situation to see it clearly. And you don't work for your troops, Mark. You work for the team. You work for the Dolans. You work for us.
So it's time to cut the crap, Mark. I'm not saying you have to fire Wedge. That's between you and the Dolans. But we really don't need to hear or read another goddammned word about what a special guy Eric Wedge is, or about what a heckuva job he's doing, or about how firing him would be especially rash, or unwise, or a cop-out. He hasn't been part of the solution in Cleveland, and it's possible — it's possible — that he's part of the problem.
Say it with me, Mark: It's possible.
Warmest regards,
Jay
295 comments
|
14 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I always cringe at this premise:
You work for us.. i suppose it’s true, but i think people have over used it in the past to ruin it for you here.
by Brick. on Jun 24, 2009 10:51 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
It’s not true. He works for the team. The team needs support from the fans in order to succeed as a business enterprise, which makes it a somewhat symbiotic relationship, but he doesn’t work for us.
In this context, however, it doesn’t matter much, as the people he actually does work for most certainly care what the mood of the fan base is. In other contexts, the mindset that the team works for us is what causes problems, a belief that the team owes us 100% honesty regarding injuries, that baseball owes us something when it comes to PEDs, that we can treat players like serfs.
That’s neither here nor there when it comes to Shapiro and Wedge. I’m less critical than Jay is – I’d rather him stay silent on the issue unless and until he’s replacing the manager. I certainly don’t think he should be in the media blaming Wedge for the team’s performance.
See my response to Brick below.
Re: your last paragraph, once again, we’re going to have to agree to agree. I never said Shapiro should be criticizing Wedge publicly, I just said he shouldn’t be defending him publicly. Frankly, I don’t think there’s a single team official who should be getting a public defense at the moment, and only a handful of Indians players deserve one. You want to publicly defend someone, start with Cliff Lee.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Yeah, I know. He should just shut up. In many ways, I think a lot of this started with a sense of humility as much as loyalty. Yes, Shapiro and Wedge both are loyal to a fault, but Shapiro is as much saying “no manager could succeed with the crap we put on the field every night, and I’m the guy who put that crap roster together” as he is “Eric Wedge is a good manager who is doing a good job.”
by FredOx on Jun 24, 2009 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yea, I think that phrase should be reserved for public servants and government officials. This is a private organization and the Dolans pay Mark’s salary. The need to respect the fans in order to keep the organization profitable, but they don’t work for us. Look at the Marlins. They don’t seem to care at all what the fans think (and the fans don’t seem to care either), yet they still exist.
True, but without fans (us) coming through the gates, there’s no salary.
Most companies would offer that they do indeed work for their customers, from the President on down to the mail room temp. If fans are not customers, then what are they?
Juan Salas: Smartest man in baseball?
This would be true if the only source of team revenue was from the fans. However, with revenue sharing, you can drive the fan base into the ground and still survive. It’s kind of like a company getting a government subsidy.
but the revenue sharing all still comes back to the fans. in the final analysis, everything trues up to fan support. whether it’s fans watching the JES network (jackass entertainment and sports network) filtering down to the marlins through rev sharing, or 455 straight sell-outs at the jake financing a robbie alomar signing, it always comes back to the fans.
so, in a not-so-esoteric sense, baseball works for the fans.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 24, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree that within the entire framework of baseball, it comes back to the fans. However, teams like the Marlins have proven that they can disregard the fans entirely and the team can still be profitable. By adopting the Marlin model, any single team can be profitable by disregarding the fans as long as other teams (namely the large market teams) continue to appease their fan base and share their revenues.
If the Indians are run like a true business organization, then the fans should only matter if they increase profitability. As such, one could argue that Shapiro only works for us if we keep the team more profitable than the Marlin model. In 2006, the Marlin’s recorded a league best $43 million in profit. If the most profitable business model for us is the Marlin model, any courtesy the Indians organization pays to us is simply a courtesy. They could just as easily gut the team, and adopt the Marlin model and make more money. It’s this option that compels me to think Mark Shapiro works only for the Dolans.
Is profitability really the #1 concern for most sports team owners? I mean, I’m sure for some, but, how many people with enough interest to buy a baseball team would be excited about having a perpetual loser, even though it made him or her money? Am I being naïve? Am I conflating ignoring the fans with ignoring winning?
by Logodaedalus on Jun 24, 2009 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions
The Marlins were at low-ebb point of payroll due to rebuilding while the MLBAM money unexpectedly started pouring in. They will not be profitable long-term this way.
More to the point, the Indians will not be profitable without fan support, which they can’t get without winning. The Dolans risked small losses from payroll this year to get over that hump, but it backfired on them big-time.
Bottom line, the Indians clearly are not being run to turn a profit without competing. Indeed, they are failing to turn any profits while failing to win.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I’ve always hated the “you work for us” sentiment, but when I sat down and really thought about it I realized it’s just another way to state “the customer is always right.” Businesses routinely make decisions that their customers do not like (raising prices :: signing David Dellucci), but more often than not they pay attention to the people spending the money.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Brick, but those of us who are going go write more than 20 words at a time have to get over our cringes.
I hesitated at writing that phrase, but in context, it’s appropriate. That paragraph is about questioning where Shapiro’s loyalties ought to lie, and the article is about making public statements. I think the context is clear.
Even regardless of context, I think the position that Shapiro ultimately works for the fans is rather defensible. If Shapiro doesn’t work for the fans on some level, why should he talk to the media at all, ever? As I said in another recent thread, these games aren’t played for the players, and they aren’t played for the teams’ owners and managers. They’re played for the fans, who are the paying customers that make it all possible.
Of course Shapiro doesn’t report to the fans, but that’s a different story.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
relax. i’m a fan of this site, so in a way, you work for me. but if there’s a content per thought minimum now similar to fanposts, you might add it to the ground rules.
i cringed, you hesitated. for the same reason.
by Brick. on Jun 24, 2009 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I do work for you, although it’s tough to draw a direct parallel, since writing whatever the hell I feel like writing is essentially the whole job. But I do very much write with respect for our readers (and all Indians fans) in mind.
I’m just saying, you have the luxury of avoiding a lot of words, phrases, concepts and styles when you don’t write all that much. You weren’t disagreeing, you were just cringing.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
that’s not really the parallel i was implying though. it’s more that while that is my luxury, it’s similar to your luxury to not have to work 3 sides of a fence (owner, fans, the troops) with regards to this thing. it’s easy for you to say “Screw the troops, you need to answer to Paul and Larry Dolan. And US!” But i’d contend doesn’t have that luxury. and shouldn’t. the troops do matter to him, and should.
Except that I never said he should screw his own troops. And without that, the whole argument vanishes.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
well, then what do you mean by the line “And you don’t work for your troops, Mark.”? really, i’m just trying to follow along.
forget the word ‘screw’. “never mind the troop’s feelings for right now, you need to answer to….” i don’t mean “screw over.” anyway, forget the wording, i’m genuinely trying to follow the logic.
this seems to me like a typical case where when there’s talk with fans and media about firing a manager and a GM gives him an endorsement. sometimes part of that is for the sake of the manager and the players knowing where the gm stands. except that you’re saying this isn’t typical case because of the impending dolan-shapiro conference. so he shouldn’t have said that for the sake of wedge or the players in this case?
Conceptually, yes, the entire organization is producing a product to be consumed by the fans, so they should have some loyalty to us. And in this context, that loyalty should produce a result wherein Shapiro does not publicly defend the indefensible when shutting up is a valid option.
My problem is, why stop there? The fans are, by and large, stupid and ignorant when it comes to baseball. Should Shapiro have signed K-Rod last off-season? After all, he works for the fans and that’s what the fans wanted. Wedge works for the fans, too, so should he play Garko and Barfield every day? I know you don’t think that, which is why I want something more nuanced. They work for the club, the club’s mission is to field a good baseball team, which ultimately is what the fans want, even if what they say they want on a day-to-day basis is antithetical to what they really want.
Did you miss this part?
I know you’re not going to respect the fans’ feelings in your decision-making — you never have, and I’m not saying you should start now — but at the very least, Mark — again, one reasonable, classy guy to another — you ought to respect the fans’ feelings in your public statements.
Why stop there? Because that’s the reasonable place to stop. The fans want a winner, it’s their job to field a winner. They can — and constantly do — tailor their public statements to the fans’ sensibilities, which by itself does not impeded their ability to field a winner. Anything further might impeded those efforts, and that’s why you stop there.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I concur with the sentiment and also believe Shapiro went too far in his defense of his manager. It’s a bad juju to hear the Dolan’s say “process” and then to hear Shapiro campaign publicly to affect that process. Shapiro can express his thoughts to the Dolan’s, but not via the public forum, unless he believes that he and Wedge are a package deal.
Is this letter going to get postmarked, or will it stay within the realm of LGT?
ugh
Let’s hope he doesn’t read it. That was an embarrassing moment for SB Nation.
by dscel on Jun 24, 2009 10:57 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
You’re an A’s fan. You’re probably too young to remember having a GM who even takes his manager’s phone calls. You know nothing about this situation.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
It's not the situation,
it’s the language. It was really immature. A random fan sending that in happens. Someone with authority, working for a source like SBN which would love to be a serious media outlet, should be a lot more respectful.
Writers for serious media outlets feel free to voice criticism, even harshly, when they feel it’s truly warranted. I feel okay about my language choices, and I think you’ll find few Indians fans to agree with you that it wasn’t appropriate. Like many “serious” writers, I have a track record writing about front office issues, which, again, is something you apparently know nothing about.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I think it was fine, if we aren’t allowed to criticize someone in power, then what is the point? Not to mention that the chances of Shapiro actually reading this are really pretty slim.
Again with your assertions that I know nothing.
Anyway, I’m a huge supporter of SBN, and all blogs within it. If SBN, and all other new media, wishes to ever become a legit source, it’s going to need to be a whole lot more professional. There are plenty of ways to write and criticize front offices without talking down to the perceived subject. A writer for a major media outlet would write this as if that front office member is right in front of them. I’m getting the feeling you wouldn’t stand in front of Mark Shapiro and say this. If you can’t realize it after reading aloud, then you probably won’t get my point.
All I know is I cringed throughout that self-important piece.
Re: whether you know nothing or not, your words, like mine, speak for themselves. I think at the very least, you are missing completely the context of the public discourse regarding Shapiro and Wedge. Go read the comments under any Indians story on cleveland.com. Read the comments here over the last few days. What you’re getting here is the thinking person’s version of a very angry fan base’s not-entirely-unfair critique.
All writers are self-important. I get plenty of good feedback from professional writers and journalists, many of them quite accomplished, so I’m not really worried about what you think of my tone. If I were standing in front of Mark Shapiro, I would essentially have this same conversation. I think it’s a huge mistake to be making such a public defense of his manager at this time, and there’s nothing wrong with saying so. You are just way off the mark.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Again, I have no problems with your opinions or critiques. I only have a problem with the condescending tone, e.g. the amount of times you wrote “,Mark,” as if you were dealing with your adolescent son.
I was just trying to help, there’s no argument here.
You have heard or writing for effect haven’t you, dscel? See, dscel, the reason you use someone’s name a lot in a conversation is because you are trying to explain to them a notion that they seem to having trouble grasping. That, dscel, is what is happening here. It’s a stylistic turn, it’s not disrespectful or condescending.
Now, dscel, do you think you can understand that what I am writing is intentionally disrespectful and condescending? Is there maybe a difference between that and what Jay wrote in the place of an entire frustrated fanbase? Maybe you should think a little bit about that before you jump on another team’s site and start correcting the moderators and calling the posters unreasonable.
I become an expert simply by doing something.
I thought SBN was supposed to be “a sports blog network of, by and for the fans.” Jay is a fan, a big fan, like many of us, and posted his thoughts. What other requirment is there for content on SBN?
If SBN has aspirations of becoming another professional media outlet, I don’t want to be part of it, I like hearing the fan’s perspective. I may or may not agree, but that’s the current beauty of LGT.
Good point, and first reasonable response.
I think he should be the voice of fans, I just didn’t like the piece. And that’s my opinion, didn’t mean to start a war. I didn’t realize that I’d be the only one who felt that it was too passive-aggressive and condescending. Now I’ll head back to the confines of A’s-dom, where people do the same thing from time-to-time.
you are right that Jay was being passive-aggressive and condescending. The question ought to be about whether it is appropriate to do so, about which people can reasonably disagree. I tend to think, given jay’s role and his goals, it makes sense to take the tone he did.
Jay is one of the founders of this very successful blog about the Indians. If you hung out here for very long you would recognize that Jay is not your average fan. If I had written and posted this I would have been criticized soundly for my presumptuousness, but not that you are the only one who seemed to feel it was “immature.” Didn’t that fact strike you before you commented?
If you believe it's just a game, you're also probably wondering why Santa keeps skipping your house every year.
by LeftyCatcher on Jun 24, 2009 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Now I’ll head back to the confines of A’s-dom, where people do the same thing from time-to-time.
my my my, you certainly are a douche.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 24, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
well that was a genuinely infantile response.
yes, dscel should have explained why he felt it was an embarrassing moment, but that response is dismissive, condescending and insulting. why not just call him an a**hole or a Yankees fan? that does not reflect well on jay and his credibility. i give dscel a lot of credit for not rising to the flame-bait and saying fu, but in engaging jay rationally and explaining himself.
jay’s response should have more closely resembled AllenSmith’s. but what do i know? i’m probably too young to remember anything but the way Hoynes responds to fan letters or the trolls on the cleveland.com boards.
I can appreciate your point of view on this, but frankly, that guy can just kiss my ass. He comes in here, condemns the post in the strongest possible terms — an all-time low for all the SBN blogs combined. As justification, he claims to have a lot personally invested as a fan of SBN — more than Ryan and I do apparently — and to know more about what’s good for SBN, and about what “legit media” should look like, and about writing and tone in general.
From what I can tell, he doesn’t know a damned thing about any of those subjects, or about my background writing about the Indians, or about the Indians, or about the subject at hand, or about anything at all frankly. Not only did he not deserve better treatment, he actually deserved worse. Somebody doesn’t like the tone I took or the style I chose to write in, that’s fine. But he went way beyond that, and he simply was out of his depth.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 25, 2009 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Mark is a pretty crafty wordsmith. He can say that we aren’t simply firing a manager, but making a number of changes in the organization. And that the sum total of those changes will deliver improvement.
I wrote a fanpost (eaten by SB or my work server) yesterday that wondered why there wasn’t a new manager on Tuesday. You have to try something, right? There is nothing soooo special with Wedge that requires the Tribe to keep him on, in hopes that the players turn it around. Maybe a new manager will do better. He couldn’t do any worse.
Anyway, now I’m glad my post wasn’t up here, because Jay said the same thing, in much, much more depth. So, rec.
You know, I’ve thought about this some more since Jay raised the point yesterday, and the more I think about it, the more I think this reveals a breach between the Dolans and Shapiro. It’s totally out of character, as Jay notes. Shapiro has NEVER done anything like this previously. Here’s what I think may be going on: the Dolans have indicated that changes need to be made, a not-so-subtle hint that Wedge needs to go (rightly or wrongly). Shapiro doesn’t agree and has said so to them privately. Dolan’s public comment about Shapiro/Wedge not being a package deal comes after this hypothetical conversation — it reveals that Dolan is still thinking about keeping Shapiro and firing Wedge (he may be hinting to Shapiro that he’s not going to be forced into firing Shapiro because he wants to fire Wedge and Shapiro won’t do it). Shapiro’s public statements about not firing Wedge are kind of a response to this message — his way of saying I’m not going to do it.
This may be all wrong, and I haven’t checked on who said what when to see if the order of this is plausible. But, I do think one could reasonably conclude that there has ALREADY been discussion, behind the scenes, of whether to fire Wedge and that Shapiro and the Dolans have already disagreed. The public discussion is maneuvering in response to those private discussions, at least in part.
Your explanation makes more sense to me than previous theories. I sense that Mark is too smart to air his laundry out in the media unless he no longer cares about its ramifications. If there has become a rift between the Dolans and Shapiro or if Mark simply has grown tired of the budgetary straitjacket and yearns for other challenges, he might try to ruffle the Dolans’ feathers.
I don’t disagree with this theory, but I have always found the sort of Kremlin-watching that goes on with certain front offices (notably the Yankees and Red Sox, but certainly also of the Browns among a certain segment of fans) really distasteful. All the speculation, theorizing, and conspiracy-hatching; to my mind the relationships among front office personnel are almost certainly just like the relationships most of us have to deal with in our jobs. And while there’s always a certain whiff of politics, it’s mostly just about people trying to make the organization — be it a professional sports team, a financial firm, a hospital, a university, whatever — a better and more effective one.
So consequently I don’t really have a problem with Jay giving Shapiro a stern talking-to via this blog, but I just can’t stand the ultrafine parsing of each statement coming from the mouth of Shapiro, Wedge, whichever Dolan happens to have a mic stuck in has face, etc. Remember that a lot of these quotes that are dissected with such care are really just the result of Hoynes or somebody like him constantly pestering for quotes and, who knows, occasionally printing the ever-so-slight misquote.
So while it may be a fun or interesting pastime to certain folks to try to discern the ever-shifting front office alliances like it’s a season of Survivor, and it’s certainly going to be forever a part of internet fandom, I just, like I say, find it all very pointless and a little rude.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
by mrich on Jun 24, 2009 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Sorry you find it rude. I don’t think it is. I think fans have a perfect right to try to understand what extremely well-paid public figures say in public settings. My intent was to try to understand why the Indians’ front office is behaving in an uncharacteristic way in the context of what Jay has correctly pointed out is an unnecessary and largely indefensible public defense of the team’s manager. When Shapiro talks to Peter Gammons (not Hoynes) about the team’s manager, it’s not an impromptu press conference; it’s a national appearance, so I think your characterization of the situation is more than a little inaccurate.
I agree with this analysis. Part of Shapiro’s (and the Indians’) reputation is exceptional loyalty. It’s part of the brand that they not only sell to fans, but also to players. So, I think Shapiro is taking this to an extreme. But, I think he is also setting up a situation where the Dolans are forced to fire Wedge without Shapiro’s explicit (or even implicit) consent. Or, as Shapiro is spinning this thing, they are forced to fire them both, which, for all we know, suits Shapiro just fine.
He may be saying to himself “Hey, I was thinking about getting out of this gig anyway — these guys are making me abandon my organizational philosophy. So, either they can fire me outright, they can abide by my decision, or they can take responsibility for firing Wedge themselves.” In other words, if it’s truly not his belief that Wedge deserves to be fired (and that’s the advise he gave the Dolans) then why should he pretend otherwise? I actually respect him for this. The Dolans don’t really need his permission to fire Wedge. Where I disagree with Shapiro is that he should have simply said nothing. There was no need for him to publicly posture in support of Wedge. Either he is overly concerned about his reputation, or he wants to be fired.
Look, everybody wants to be a nice guy and to be seen as a nice guy, everybody wants to be everybody’s friend. But when you’re the boss, you’re the boss. Sometimes you have to fire someone you like and respect, because for whatever reason, the situation dictates it. And sometimes you have to be willing to tell your manager that you won’t give up Brandon Phillips forever just because the manager prefers the veteran presence that Ramon Vazquez’s ass brings to the bench it’s planted on.
I have trouble believing that Shapiro could have come this far without being willing to make tough decisions that displease people that he likes. He does it all the time with players. I doubt that he will feel that firing Wedge goes against his basic principles.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
So the rotation problems really come down to Carmona
I agree strongly with this. Carmona average a pathetic 5 innings in his 12 starts and only twice allowed fewer than four earned runs. That is bad. Expectations for Carmona should have centered around something closer to 6 innings a start, and 2.75-3 runs per start….So instead of putting the Indians in a winning position just 2 of 12 times, it should have been something more like 7 or 8 of 12 times – with at least 12 less innings hoisted on our craptcular bullpen. And I think Raffy Perez is the bullpen’s equivalent of Carmona in the rotation.
It’s funny. People have been wanting Wedge fired forever and every time they posted that on this site, someone would respond much like Shapiro has, essentially saying that it is a cop-out and the team’s lousy play should not be blamed on the manager. I still don’t think blaming the manager is entirely the right idea, but like Jay says, he is not entitled to a lifetime appointment as Indians manager.
I ultimately think that the Dolans are going to ask Shapiro to fire Wedge and he is going to have to give in to keep his job. I’m betting that when that time comes, Shapiro will change his tune.
Very few are entitled to a lifetime appointment at any job. I think this is probably the point that resonates with most fans and is the main reason Shapiro’s comments were in poor taste. It sort of assumes that people get to keep their jobs in the face of complete failure as long as no one can prove without a doubt that it was their fault. I don’t think most people are feeling this kind of job security right now. As Jay put it, at this point Shapiro needs to be articulating reasons to keep (I think Jay said hire) Wedge, not merely reasons why he shouldn’t be fired. At some point clearly the standard must change, and there has been no substantive argument that Wedge has put many, or any, wins on the board during his tenure. You can’t just keep screaming “do no harm” when the patient is clearly about to die.
Oh, I’m not arguing that Wedge should be kept at all, just pointing out the evolution of the conventional wisdom on this site.
I don’t think it’s mostly an evolution of conventional wisdom. It’s mostly an evolution in opinion relating to the team’s continued underperformance. If they had been successful this year OR last, we’d still be defending Wedge.
In short, the so-called conventional wisdom of this blog has simply reacted to real-world feedback. It’s certainly not that we’ve been lead here by Jay or Ryan or anyone else.
Two bad seasons (and ongoing underachievement by certain players) have a way of changing one’s worldview.
Baseball is a results-oriented game. Given enough talent, you need to produce. And even before all the injuries, the Indians were underachieving. At some point, the burden of proof has to shift from “why replace Wedge?” to “why not replace Wedge?” I think we’re at that point.
It’s been more than that though. When this topic was first breached (broached?) in May people here reacted like it was a totally dead topic/stupid idea. Now though it’s a pretty common sentiment. And that has, in my opinion, been more reflective of Jay coming out for it than anything else.
I can understand why someone would think that, but I don’t think I was particularly early to this particular party. Firing Wedge became more of a legitimate idea gradually over the last two months. At most, my own transition on that question merely mirrored the rest of the cohort — correlation without causation. I will grant you that when ANY of the mods says that an idea is at least worthy of a discussion, that makes it harder for others to be dismissive or contemptuous of that idea. But that’s not going to change the votes.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Perhaps, but I might have been last among the four mods. I’m not even convinced with any conviction that Wedge needs to be or should be fired, but at least it ought to be on the table.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
One of the ‘pros’ for keeping Wedge was his supposed knack for helping young players transition to the bigs. Given what we’ve seen out of the likes of Peralta, Carmona, Raffy Perez, Jensen Lewis, Garko, etc. I would say the proof isn’t really in the pudding.
Juan Salas: Smartest man in baseball?
I think what you are saying here is that what were previously assumed to be Wedge’s strengths are now seriously in question. For instance, I always thought he was a bit out of his league when it came to situational strategy, but I was a big defender of him as a strong clubhouse manager.
Then, the last few years his favoritism towards certain players and his treatment of others (Marte, Peralta, Phillips) started to put a few holes in my defense.
Now, the record speaks for itself. The strengths are more likely to be weaknesses, and the weaknesses haven’t gone away. Meanwhile, the ship is sinking.
Ryan had it right: At this point, why not fire him? The only compelling reason would be because it might send a bad message that it was all Wedge’s fault. To this I say, who cares? The Indians don’t have the luxury of being worried about sending wrong messages.
I probably shouldn’t trivialize this quote, but it applies here:
“Few are guilty, all are responsible.”
Even if Wedge isn’t guilty, is he not clearly responsible?
Ryan had it right: At this point, why not fire him? The only compelling reason would be because it might send a bad message that it was all Wedge’s fault.
Well, that sure didn’t stop them from firing the bullpen coach.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
When this topic was first breached (broached?) in May people here reacted like it was a totally dead topic/stupid idea.
I really don’t remember this. I remember it being discussed fairly openly without any harsh crackdown or anything.
by NickFantana on Jun 24, 2009 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Was going to say this.
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jun 25, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Hell, Jay and I were debating Bob Melvin’s resume.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 25, 2009 8:07 AM EDT up reply actions
I disagree that Shapiro has somehow disrespected the Dolans with his defense of Wedge. The failures of the Indians ARE at an organizational level, and making the manager take the fall IS a cop-out. I seem to be in a minority on this, but my respect for Shapiro has grown significantly with the way he has handled this difficult season – a lesser thinker and person could easily succumb to the temptation to replace the manager, perhaps even self-deluded to believe it might make a significant difference. I am not mounting a defense of Wedge, but it seems clear that the club’s issues extend well-beyond the guy filling in the line-up card. I’m glad that Shapiro recognizes this, and I admire that his actions match-up with his beliefs.
I think the Dolans could find a replacement-level manager. At least.
Juan Salas: Smartest man in baseball?
If you were to define a replacement manager as one who could equal the team’s Pythagorean record, Eric Wedge has had negative VORM for quite some time.
by woodsmeister on Jun 25, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions
If all our manager did was fill out the lineup card, they could hire me. Whatever point you are making isn’t strengthened by an attempt to minimize Wedge’s daily contribution.
I am inclined to disagree with Jay. Shapiro’s key job is running the baseball side of the club. From that perspective, he clearly believes the best baseball decision is keeping Wedge. If he believes his boss is thinking about making a dumb move, and is maneuvering to do so publicly, then he is doing his job by voicing his argument publicly. When my boss says something dumb in a meeting it is not my job to let that dumb thing go without contradiction. My job is to convince him it is a dumb thing to say or do, even if this occurs in public. Once he makes a call, its my job to execute, but nobody benefits by me keeping my mouth shut. Whether or not such a thing is “classy” or not depends more on how the criticism is voiced. I think Shapiro has done a decent job here, especially by saying the buck stops with him.
And that’s really the point. This isn’t about being classy. This isn’t about spitting in the eyes of the fans (which I honestly doubt will matter, from a financial perspective). This is about Shapiro being WRONG. The best part of the letter was the last part where Jay essentially shows Shapiro’s views on wedge (as far as we know them) are bankrupt. And the best part of Jay’s recent oeuvre is his article pointing out there is a non-trivial probability that the entire Shapiro concept is bankrupt. The problem here is not what Shapiro thinks about Wedge, and certainly not what he says about Wedge. The problem is Shapiro.
There is no way that Shapiro himself would agree that he should be debating his bosses in the public sphere. He might disagree with me that what he did is equivalent to that, but he would never, ever agree that it would be appropriate to do that.
Your job, too, may be to advise and even to disagree with your bosses, but only privately. I don’t know what your job is, but most people who publicly contradicted what their bosses were saying would be fired.
I don’t think there’s an open-and-shut case for firing Wedge. My issue really is that Shapiro talks as though it’s an open-and-shut case for retaining him. He is basically dismissive of the idea that replacing Wedge is an option that deserves consideration. And that is, essentially, “the crap.”
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I believe you are wrong on the general point. Someone might reasonably choose not to contradict their boss publicly for self-preservation reasons—because their boss is a jerk and can’t handle it. But if the boss is musing about stupid ideas in public, I see no problem about stating my views when asked about them in public. An exception might be if such statements legitimately made it harder for the boss to take the action he preferred. But, pace your letter, this is not the case. If Shapiro is called to the press conference on Wedge’s firing, all he has to say is “I voiced my opinion about what the best baseball decision was. But the Dolan’s have business responsibilities beyond the best baseball decision, and made the decision on that basis. I respect it, and wish Eric all the best as we move forward with what’s best for the organization”
I am certainly not wrong to say, for almost every job that involves a role in the public sphere, it would not be considered acceptable to contradict your boss publicly. Strictly from the perspective of the company’s PR, it would be considered totally asinine to have internal decisions being debated publicly.
You would have trouble finding even one instance where Shapiro appeared to be contradicting the Dolans, or even vice versa, and I don’t think that was his intent here. I think he inadvertently raised the possibility that that could happen.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I cannot think of any situation where there is a benefit to airing company laundry in the media unless it’s to expose some kind of corruption.
Perhaps Shapiro was theorizing in the abstract regarding his comments about simply firing managers.
Separately, his suppport for Wedge is more of an endorsement of Wedge’s strengths and payback for times that Eric used his platform to protect Shaprio’s back.
I’d like to think that Shapiro can still sit alone in a room with Wedge, fire him, and they’d still be friends and respectful of each other’s contributions.
Ok. Let me try to make some finer distinctions than I have been making.
I guess I had a different vision of “public” then the one actually at stake in this discussion, as I was thinking more of an internal public. So, point taken, in some sense.
In another sense, if its asinine for Shapiro to be answering these questions at all—which, though I may be wrong here, I think he has been doing since before the Dolans’ comments—then it should be equally asinine for the Dolans’ to be airing future decisions out loud too. I think Shapiro was being asked a question about his opinions that he felt it was reasonable to answer, that he has been answering for some time. One might even argue communicating his views to the fans like this is part of his job.
So, I am still not sure this is really Shapiro being unclassy. I am pretty sure that his classiness or lack thereof is not really a central issue.
My issue really is that Shapiro talks as though it’s an open-and-shut case for retaining him. He is basically dismissive of the idea that replacing Wedge is an option that deserves consideration.
Is this really true? I believe that Shapiro would seriously consider firing Wedge (if he hasn’t already). As you recently noted, Shapiro has replaced people before. I think the front office rarely makes hasty decisions, and they want time to deliberate about everything that has happened. I also think Shapiro is correct to say that reflexively firing the manager is a cop-out. I do not take recent events to mean that Wedge possesses some sort of manager’s equivalent of academic tenure, just that they want to carefully consider Wedge’s entire body of work before making a change. I think that Castrovince is right, and if there is a change it will occur at the All-Star break at the earliest, and more likely during the off-season.
There are more than 20 other midsize market executives whose approach isn’t (aren’t?)working, as well. Some of those approaches fail because they aren’t well conceived. Others aren’t working because the probability of success for ANY approach, given the economics, will succeed only occasionally. I submit that Shaprio’s approach is well conceived and that the lack of immediate results do not automatically indicate that his theories are bankrupt.
by elsandito on Jun 24, 2009 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with this. There is no open and shut case anywhere here. Even failure three out of four years does not mean Shapiro is wrong, but it does call his methods into question, as I think Jay did brilliantly the other day. But instead of debating those methods we are debating angels on the head of classiness.
I concur but I think there are changes that really need to be made.
I defended Shapiro’s development of the farm system, and I still believe he’s done a good job. But his draft approach has got to change. The all low ceiling all the time draft approach for pitchers is horrible. I’m skeptical at best of our aversion to drafting high school players high in the draft, and I really think we need to be a bit bolder overall.
Personally, I think the draft is one of the few places were mid market teams can compete with big market teams. I’d rather pay a top prospect $4 million than a david dellucci type player
by world dictator on Jun 24, 2009 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ll echo what you said here, in response to elsandito’s original comment. This goes back to the “fine-tuning” discussion we were having earlier. Maybe there really is something to having the “right guys” on your team – but maybe you can afford to loosen that restriction every now and then. Maybe you actually do want a manager who has a more-or-less “lifetime appointment”, but realize that when he insists on playing Ramon Vasquez, it’s time to fire him for gross incompetence.
eh
You’ve made better points about Shapiro/Wedge
by world dictator on Jun 24, 2009 12:23 PM EDT reply actions
say if LaRoche came up and smacked a grand slam last night in the 9th instead of flying out, do you guys think Wedge is manager right now?
So much to disagree with and so little time to do it so I’m going to be relatively brief and at this point address only your overall theme.
Of all the people I read on the internert Jay that you would call for Wedge’s firing on behalf of the fans you are about the last one I’d expect it from. You have perhaps the best understanding of anyone of the lack of transparency in baseball team decisionmaking. The average fan tends to be pretty clueless (as do many in the media).about the decisionmaking process and attribute every decision made about who plays and where solely on Wedge even though certain of these decisions originate in the front office.
As someone who has been active on message boards now for five years I’ve seen countless criticisms of game moves made by Wedge where not only is there very little understanding of basic baseball but the opinions offered often are premised on false facts.
[Disclaimer: In the above I’m not trashing the posters on this blog whom I find as a whole to be fairly knowledgable and intelligent. I don’t post here more often because I hate the formatting]
Fans and ownership perhaps have one thing in common and that is each want a winner. Most front offices are smart enough to understand why a team is winning and why it is losing. Fans really don’t care about the reasons they are only interested in results. If a manager doesn’t produce irrespective of how bad the team personnel is they want the manager gone. You assserted Manuel is a “pretty decent manager” (a proposition I disagree with) but if the Philly fans had been listened he would have been gone before the start of the 2008 season.
You have also assumed too much. It is indeed pretty clear that Larry Dolan wants Wedge gone but it is less clear that Paul Dolan shares that sentiment and while Paul might take his father’s sentiments into account from everything I’ve read Paul is the one that makes the decisions.
Indeed, I’m not at all certain that the “promised” meeting you refer to is an extraordinary one. I’d assume that every season there is a sitdown around the all-star break to fully evaluate the team and make decisions about what moves are to be made in July (Buy? Sell? Neither?).
Will Wedge get fired? I wouldn’t be at all surprised but, if so, it will be done for attendance reasons and not baseball ones. I’d not that whomever manages (including Wedge) the second half record will end up better than the first half record because barring future major injuries the team will be healthier and Tribe teams are built to be second half teams.
Finally, you kept referring to Shapiro’s “loyalty” to Wedge. I’m not at all sure why you think Shapiro wouldn’t drop Wedge like a hot brick if he didn’t think Wedge was doing a good job.
My only real contention here is that I personally believe the manager has a greater impact on the psychology of the team than his in-game decisions. I actually think that Wedge is the best Tribe manager in my lifetime when it comes to making the correct in-game decision. Is that alone enough to merit keeping his job? Certainly not. Part of being the manager is being a leader, and while Shapiro has praised Wedge for his leadership qualities, I would argue that Wedge’s managing style has had a negative impact on the productivity of his players and the success of the team
I think you’re right that firing Wedge (or Shapiro for that matter) at this point would likely be motivated by attendance reasons. But, that’s not separate from baseball reasons. Fans aren’t going to flock back to the park because we fire Wedge and hire a new manager (even if it’s Joe Torre or some high profile guy). They will return because the team plays better and shows signs of becoming a contender once again. Jay can speak for himself, but my impression is that he is arguing that there’s little evidence that Wedge is helping the team win at this point. When Shapiro defends him publicly in the way that he did, it’s like he’s telling the fans “wait till next year” when the same cast of characters will magically be better. I don’t think Wedge is THE problem (although I agree he’s not helping); I do think the team needs a new direction of some kind and needs to make clear it is serious about finding one if it wants attendance to increase.
Sorry the format bugs you.
I have not argued primarily that Wedge should be fired. I have argued against the idea that that the idea of firing him should be dismissed out of hand, because that’s cutting off an avenue of potential improvement. I also have argued against the idea that Wedge is in some ways a Very Special Talent as a manager, because I think it’s clear to everyone NOT close to him that that isn’t the case. The records have been bad enough that if Wedge isn’t expendable — if these players need an extraordinary manager to carry them to .450 or whatever — then the whole front office should be let go.
I also have not argued that the fans should be listened to when it comes to firing the manager, in Cleveland or Philly or anywhere else. Never have I said that, and more than once I have said the opposite. All I’ve said is that in a brutal season, the fans’ feelings should be respected when choosing what to say publicly.
I don’t assume that either Dolan does or doesn’t want Wedge gone or that the meeting is extraordinary. I assume only that meetings will happen, ordinary or extraordinary, and that after such rampant failure, the Dolans will want at least to discuss the option of replacing anyone and everyone. It’s only natural that this would be discussed, and they should want all options on the table, and they’re entitled to that.
Finally, my sense is that Shapiro has a strong personal loyalty to everyone who works for him. Yes, he’ll fire them if absolutely necessary. But he also has expressed special admiration for Wedge’s leadership qualities, at one point I think referring to him as possibly a once-in-a-generation caliber of leader. I think Shapiro’s special admiration for Wedge is well documented, and I think frankly it may be a bit of a blind spot for him, in the very same way that Blake inspired certain blind spots in one or more Indians officials.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 24, 2009 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
First, I hope you didn’t get the idea I was trashing your format. That was not my intent.
Second, you place too much emphasis on the degree Shapiro is loyal to Wedge. Shapiro very publicly let Wedge take the fall over Phillips being DFAed when he said that he, the front office and the scouting staff and it was Wedge and his coaches who wanted Phillips gone.
During the last few seasons Wedge on a couple of occasions has bemoaned lack of clubhouse leadership and Shapiro on each occasion immediately made statements downplaying the importance of clubhouse leadership.
Third, it is only in about the last year that I’ve come to realize that Wedge is an above average manager. I’m not sure where you got your .450 from. Is that where you think the Tribe will endup if Wedge continues as manager until the end of the season? Sorry but I bet you that the Tribe finishes around .500 if not higher.
Wedge through yesterday had a .504 career winning percentage. When you look at the holes in most of these teams it is hard to believe a better manager would have done significantly better.
Fourth, I hope to eventually get around to replying in detail to your loyalty to the Dolans argument that I totally disagree with. In short Shapiro owed it to Wedge and the team to speakout in support because to do otherwise undercuts Wedge’s authority with the players. Shapiro was in a difficult position. Larry Dolan should not have publicly spoken out and has since either retracted his statement or honestly explained it was mistaken. Shapiro by remaining silent would have undercut Wedge and the players. Moreover, based on the current stance of what Dolan meant it is not at all hard to imagine that the Dolans knew ahead of time what Shapiro was going to say and approved it.
Fifth, a “blind” spot for Blake seems to imply an unrealistic opinion of Blake. What might that blind spot be?
I’d note that Joe Torre almost immediately embraced Blake for both his on the field play and his clubhouse conduct. Of course, Torre loves players who play hard and is also as strong an advocate of the importance of clubhouse leadership as is Wedge..
by JenniferMarie on Jun 24, 2009 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions
When you look at the holes in most of these teams it is hard to believe a better manager would have done significantly better.
The question is do you feel this team has over-performed or under-performed during the majority of Wedge’s tenure?
2005 was probably the one year where I feel this team outdid it’s talent. I count 2007 as slightly above reasonable expectations. 2006, 2008, and 2009 are all well below my expectations based on the talent. I could see it argued differently, but this is how I feel.
2006 expectations were based on 2005 performance.— at least for most.
It doesn’t take a whole lot of hindsight to see the opening day roster was weak.
E. Perez, Sauerbeck, Graves and Hollandsworth never appeared in another major league game after the 2006 season. Jason Johnson pitched in Japan in 2007 and was terrible with the Dodgers in 2008.
This team also included Belliard, Boone, Broussard, Matt Miller, Mota and Vasquez. With the exception perhaps of Belliard the rest went onto prove themselves below average MLB players.
The 2008 team did start the season with a decent roster but was crippled by injuries of Hafner, Martinez and Westbrook, and the absence of an effective closer until well into the season.
The Tribe’s 2009 problems are bad starting pitching and a bad pen. The bad starting pitching was predictable but the bad pen was not. I blame neither Wedge nor Shapiro for that. The Tribe did start slow but after the first two weeks with decent pitching they would now be at or near the top in the divison.
by JenniferMarie on Jun 24, 2009 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions
so, it’s no one’s fault that the pitching is bad? how, exactly, does that compute?
either the manager is deploying them poorly, or the general manager did a poor job of generally managing the acquisition of pitching talent.
the fact that we can look back and see that the talent on teams that were supposed to be good wasn’t, in fact, that good does little except to underscore the point…maybe what we’ve been doing isn’t working. and in that case, isn’t it time to at least entertain the notion that we change something, anything, up?
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 24, 2009 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Shapiro very publicly let Wedge take the fall over Phillips being DFAed
If I recall correctly, that was years after the fact, and he didn’t exactly trumpet it around “very publicly.” He eventually mentioned it, in probably his 800th time answering the question.
We have a .417 record at present. Finish over .500? I’ll take that bet.
I can’t be sure there’s another manager who could have done better. But I believe Wedge has not gotten the best out of these clubs, and I believe there’s no evidence that Wedge himself has done better.
Shapiro doesn’t have to offer a dismissive comment about firing the manager. There are lots of other ways to respond that would not undermine Wedge’s authority with anyone (as if it matters at this point anyway). He can just say, “Off the record, Peter, I’d really like to comment on this but I’m not going to.” Gammons would not have found some snarky way to characterize that, he would have respected Shapiro’s discretion. This is a 100% false choice as you present it.
I actually do think Dolan spoke by mistake, but it’s his right to say that they’re going to consider a change. It is possible, as you suggest, that the Dolans already know that Shapiro won’t recommend firing Wedge and have no intention of overruling him.
Re: the blind spot for Blake … you’re not serious, are you? Torre is all about clubhouse presence, and since he always has $150 million to $250 million worth of talent to work with, I guess he can afford to be that way.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Actually before the 2006 season ended he was publicly saying DFAing Phillips was a mistake when publicly everyone else was already pointing the finger at Wedge for the move.
The Shapiro comment I cited was from Pluto’s updated version of Dealing What Shapiro was doing there was trying to exeonerate himself from the fact that while he makes all personnel decisions on this one occasion he deferred to Wedge (he didn’t think arguing over the 25th player was worth the bother). Yeah, I thought that a pretty odd defense too.
As to Torre he may have had the payroll but in his last five years with the Yankees he did not have the leadership.
A major theme of The Yankee Years was the importance to Torre of clubhouse leadership. Verducci/Torre go to great lengths to blame the teams he had after the more successful earlier teams on the fact that the leaders of those teams were gone and no one replaced them
What one needs to understand about Torre is that for multiple reasons he often prefers sending messages to players through other players..
by JenniferMarie on Jun 24, 2009 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think he was trying to exonerate himself, exactly. He didn’t deny that it was his decision.
Just because Torre thought clubhouse leadership was important doesn’t mean he’s right. The Yankees in his latter years may have lacked personality cohesion in addition to pitching, but which one do you think really cost them more ballgames?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
If I recall correctly, that was years after the fact, and he didn’t exactly trumpet it around "very publicly." He eventually mentioned it, in probably his 800th time answering the question.
I can’t recall, and will try to find a source, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t years after the fact. 1-1.5 years, maybe.
this format is awesome.
when I go to other web sites, I find myself pressing z and wondering why I’m not moving down the page
I don’t feel the need to dissect everything I agreed with or didn’t agree with, Jay. But this needed to be said by an intelligent outsider, and you’re certainly the person most of us would nominate to do it. I’m certain this will find its way to Shapiro’s office, if it hasn’t already, and in a far more direct way than it did for Dave Cameron. Hopefully your points are incorporated into the discussion with the respect they deserve.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 24, 2009 2:15 PM EDT reply actions
I said my piece in the other thread, but I think that Shapiro is still the man for the job. He hits more than he misses and he remains consistent in his approach. He correctly identifies needs and attempts to address them in the off-season the best he can.
To me, if you are asking for Wedge to be fired then you have to want Shapiro fired too. You can’t have one without the other. If you get rid of Wedge, Shapiro will do his best to replace him with a Wedge substitute. This season is lost and there is currently no advantage of lopping off Wedge’s head tomorrow versus early October. An interim coach is not going to put more asses in the seats nor is it going to turn around the performances of individual ballplayers.
I’d be thrilled with a Wedge substitute that knows how to keep a bullpen intact, that understands the importance of defense, that understands that playing over the hill vets is self defeating vs grooming the hopes of the future. Let’s go get that guy.
Most of those problems you list are due to choices made by the FO, not Wedge. Wedge can only play the guys that are put onto his 25 man roster. He can be an advocate for how that roster looks, but he doesn’t make the decision to sign these players.
Also, the only way he can get players removed from his roster is by playing them. Roberto Hernandez and Jason Michaels don’t get DFA’d by sitting on the bench, they get let go by playing them and exposing their talent on the field.
So, let me get this straight… Wedge played Blake at 3B to enhance his trade value and get him traded off the team. And, he played Dellucci over LaPorta in order to FINALLY persuade Shapiro it was time to let the younger guy have a chance. I get it!
Obviously each player and scenario is different, but Blake was played because he gave the team the best opportunity to win and wasn’t it Francisco who took AB’s from LaPorta and not Dellucci? Unless you want to include his DH PA’s.
I think it was both of them. But, I still think it’s a stretch to imply that Wedge was playing guys in order to play them off the team. Maybe in one or two cases, but I think he’s generally trying to win games and chooses the players he thinks give the team the best chance to win (as you say). I also think he’s sometimes wrong about who those players are; not all the time, mind you, but enough to make me cringe a little too often when I see the line-up card.
Obviously players aren’t played just to get them off the team but some players do see time to help the front office and coaching staff determine whether a player can help a team.
A prime example was Dellucci. Dellucci was kept in large part because he demonstrated in the last two months of 2008 that he still had hitting skills. I offered the opinion elsewhere before the season started that the Tribe would not be patient with Dellucci this season and, indeed, they weren’t.. He started just 11 games (and the first two he went 6 for 9 with a pair of doubles).
As to taking playing time away from LaPorta the facts just do not justify. Dellucci was activated earlier than he could have because they needed his left handed bat to replace Hafner. LaPorta was called up at the same time according to both Shapiro and Wedge to supply a right handed bat and to get some additional ABs.
Dellucci started just six games that LaPorta didn’t also start in after LaPorta became available.
by JenniferMarie on Jun 24, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Fair enough about the Dellucci/LaPorta issue, although I think many people on this site thought Dellucci should play every day, if they were going to call him up. In that context, LaPorta was on the team for 22 days; he started 12 games in that period. So that’s 8-10 games he didn’t start (I confess I haven’t looked up the exact number); thus, Dellucci played in between 60 and 80% of the games LaPorta didn’t start.
I agree completely that sometimes teams play guys to see if they can help (as we’ve seen recently with bullpen guys). That’s different than what Toxicadam seemed to be saying. If I misunderstood his point, I apologize.
I think it would be more accurate to say that Dellucci had a strong month of August last year. He barely played in September (and played poorly when he did). His second half OPS was .733. Personally, I’d have dumped him even sooner than they did. I’m certainly glad they were not patient with him.
Peter — My impression is that LaPorta was called up only until Hafner was ready to come off the DL and, consequently you need to break his starts into two segments. He started 4 of the first 9 games he was with the Tribe (I’m not counting the Saturday game when he arrived).
Within a couple of days after Shapiro in an interview said Hafner would have to do a rehab stint afterall and thus would be back later than expected both Shapiro and Wedge announced LaPorta would get more playing time. After that he started in 8 of the 13 games. About the time of the Shapiro interview LaPorta started taking fielding practice at first
by JenniferMarie on Jun 24, 2009 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not really seriously arguing that Dellucci was THE reason LaPorta didn’t play regularly. You’re right that they didn’t intend to play him every day (which I think was foolish) and he did play slightly more regularly in the second half of his stint. It just infuriated me, though, that they DIDN’T play their star prospect more or less all the time, if only to give him a taste of the majors, and that guys with no real promise of being a long (or even short) term help to the team got AB’s that could have gone to him. I think your point, in a way, is that some of that is on Shapiro (since he was the one who described him as a ‘right-handed bat’).
As to Dellucci’s 2008 season it was really only the last two weeks of the season he was not getting regular time.
In a piece I did for a blog site a few months before the start of the season I also mentioned that Dellucci had a strong first five weeks of the season hitting .274/.357/.493/.850.
My point was that Dellucci showed enough in 2008 that he was worth looking at in 2009 since the Tribe was obligated to pay him in 2009.
by JenniferMarie on Jun 24, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
From LaPorta’s first start to his last, the Tribe played 22 games. As you say, he started 12 of them. In the 10 LaPorta did not start, Dellucci started 6. He appeared in one additional game as a pinch-hitter. So it’s a 60/40 split overall. But if you look just at the first 16 games, they both started in three of them; Dellucci started each of the six games LaPorta did not. Dellucci never started after that.
if you are asking for Wedge to be fired then you have to want Shapiro fired too.
I’m not sure how you mean this; it’s totally obvious to me (and to others, I think) that you can wish for Wedge to be fired immediately but not at the same time want Shapiro gone.
Now, I do think I know what you mean here, that Shapiro is so inflexible that getting rid of Wedge would be effectively meaningless since whoever he picks to put in the position will by definition be another Eric Wedge. I think that’s wrong, though, and I for one am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he can find a manager that he can work with who can do a better job of… managing than Wedge has.
If he can’t or won’t, then Shapiro should be relieved of his duties as well, and rightfully so. But I think it’s clear he’s been a good enough GM over the past 8(?) years that he should get the chance to pick another manager.
I’m not sure how you mean this; it’s totally obvious to me (and to others, I think) that you can wish for Wedge to be fired immediately but not at the same time want Shapiro gone
Because there is no benefit of firing Wedge now. Shapiro has publicly stated that he supports Wedge as the near-term manager of the team. If you believe in Shapiro’s judgement, then you respect that and accept it.
So, you live with that and assume that Mark Shapiro will make the proper evaluation in the off-season when he is ready or you want EW gone now because it “starts the clock” on getting rid of Shapiro too.
I’ll put the burden of proof on you. Name a time when an interim manager has taken a team this far back (and with this record) on to the playoffs?
Unless you want to argue that keeping Wedge on the bench is somehow stunting the growth of players for the remainder of the year. But Wedge has never shown signs of “holding young guys back” once the season is lost.
I’m really trying to understand what your argument is. Are you saying that you don’t want Wedge fired at all, or just that you want Shapiro to wait until the offseason?
guessing:
we can’t make the playoffs, so who cares who the managers is. 62-100 with wedge or 63-99 with skinner doesn’t really matter.
Exactly.
So, either you support or respect Shapiro’s decision to delay the inevitable. Or you want there to be a public rebuking (from Dolan) of Shapiro’s wishes by firing Wedge now.
Do we really want to continue to employ a manager who continues to run Ryan Garko out to left field? Who continues, as Jay put it in his other recent tome, to play veterans with good approaches despite the bad results those good approaches are bringing over potential high impact newcomers? Wedge has to go, especially if we punt this season. Bring in somebody who will play the kids and let the veterans who don’t deserve playing time rot on the bench.
by woodsmeister on Jun 24, 2009 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly! I just do not understand the argument(s) that a.) it doesn’t matter who’s the coach, they’ll get the same result; or b.) any difference will be so small that it doesn’t matter either. Those are erroneous arguments that don’t lead anywhere. If it didn’t matter they wouldn’t hire a dang coach in the first place. If Shapiro knows that Wedge is not the answer, there is no reason to keep him around.
And if he doesn’t know that Wedge isn’t the answer after the 5 out of 7 years the team has underperformed (3 of the last 4), the disaster of this season, the mismanagement of talent on the club (ability to put players where they can perform best – both on and off the bench – both defensively and offensively) and his inability to get players like Peralta, Shoppach and Carmona to perform – - then Shapiro won’t ever know.
I am as big of a Shapiro fan as anyone here, but if he can’t get this, he might not be the answer either.
I just wanted to believe.
Except it does matter. If we win 62 with Wedge continuing in the same vein he is, with Jhonny refusing to perform and with veterans with “the right approach” getting the majority of the time the return is not nearly so great as if we win 63 with Skinner playing potentially high impact newcomers.
I become an expert simply by doing something.
by Brad D on Jun 24, 2009 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
The burden has been the focus of a lot of the discussion here. No one here is going to argue that a change will put them back in the playoffs. That’s more strict than necessary anyway – why isn’t the standard just whether it improves the team or not?
But after a disappointing 2008, and a last place team in 2009, it started to ring false for Wedge’s best defense to be “Firing me may not help that much.” At some point, with a team this bad, why shouldn’t the burden be on you (or Wedge)? Either he has no real effect on player performance, or his overall effect has been bad. (There’s a third option too: he’s helping the team significantly, but it’s just a historically awful group.) Even at this date, I still don’t feel strongly about Wedge, one way or another. But: why not?
The Indians posted a great record (and played well) in the second half of 2008. Did it help the team at all in 2009?
So, if your entire argument is the final W/L tally of the 2009 season … then is there anyone BETTER than Wedge for the second half of a season? Is there someone available out there that has performed as well as Wedge has in non-contending years after the All-tar break?
Why is the burden of proof on me? You said “there is no benefit of firing Wedge now”. Who said anything about an interim manager taking a team to the playoffs? Not me.
I think we don’t know if there is a or isn’t a benefit to firing Wedge now. But the Indians are the 2nd worst team in the majors right now, so it’d be pretty damn difficult for a new manager to perform any worse.
Okay, I will frame the question a different way.
What is the harm in Wedge managing the rest of the season? What is the worst case possible outcome (you should base these assertions by his actions from the past during “lost seasons”).
Or we could ask “What is the harm in Wedge being fired now?” What is the worst case possible outcome?
Framing this either way doesn’t really matter because the Indians will probably continue to suck whether or not Wedge is kept. But wouldn’t it make for a more interesting season if there was a new manager sooner rather than later?
Given that the “new” manager will be Joel Skinner, I would say it will absolutely not be more interesting, other than that moving Skinner from the coach’s box to the dugout will almost certainly increase run production.
What is the good that comes from letting him manage the rest of the season. If there’s a non-zero chance that the team would get a psychological lift and/or better instruction from, say, Skinner, don’t you have to do that? There is absolutely ZERO upside to keeping Wedge in the job at this point. He’s a known quantity, and the Indians demonstrably and unequivocally suck.
I wouldn’t argue that keeping Wedge for the rest of the season “harms” us, in that it’d be really hard for us to be any worse than we are now. But when you have the worst record in the AL, don’t you have to start pushing buttons to see what happens?
Once you have made the decision that Wedge will not be back next year, you do not keep him on for the rest of this year.
Keeping him on through the end of the season only makes sense if you are considering bringing him back next year.
What would Wedge have to do in the second half of 2009 to save his job?
Certainly, his performance in the 2nd half of 2008 no longer mollifies his critics less than a year later.
I’m open to the idea that Shapiro can’t change his own game enough to be worth keeping. It’s worth discussing, but I doubt I’ll end up agreeing with it.
Two key things distinguish fire-Shapiro from fire-Wedge, in my view.
The first is that the manager’s job is mainly personality driven, while the GM’s job is mostly action-driven. The GM is defined by the moves he makes, which have far more profound effect than the moves the manager makes. The manager is drawn by the way he relates to, communicates with and leads his players and coaches. I think there’s a far greater chance Shapiro can learn and make better moves — if that’s what’s needed — than that Wedge can evolve his personality to any degree that would be significant in the clubhouse.
The second is replaceability. Regardless of mistakes made and poor results, there remains LOTS of evidence that Shapiro is an excellent GM, possibly an outstanding GM. If you fire Shapiro, then you either get Antonetti — who may not be any different — or you might genuinely have trouble finding a GM who would do all the things Shapiro has done, as effectively as he has done them. It could be a significant step back in one or more areas. I don’t think anybody really believes that about Wedge, though. I think you plug in Skinner or Lovullo or whoever they want, and the club maybe plays a little better and maybe a little worse.
One point I make above is that Wedge cannot credibly be considered special as a manager. I think arguing that Shapiro is a special baseball executive is a much stronger proposition, and that remains true even if one also feels that Shapiro bears more of the blame for this season than Wedge.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 24, 2009 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Isn’t it possible that Shapiro was speaking extemporaneously and simply said something he shouldn’t have? A mistake he now regrets for exactly the reasons Jay speaks to?
Inside the Shapiro Dome
"Time to downshift into my talking points,…good…good…oops…shouldn’t have said THAT. Better call the Dolans….."
by Seattle Tribe Fan on Jun 24, 2009 2:43 PM EDT reply actions
It’s possible. But if Shaprio publicly misspoke or believes he was taken out of context, then he should publicly admit he misspoke or was taken out of context, which I have not seen yet. Until he recants his comments, we have to presume he was quoted as he intended to speak.
Boy, all this strikes me as terribly naive. Perhaps Shapiro’s comments are contrived for public consumption—something to show the press—while the real conversation goes on behind closed doors, as it should.
Think about it this way: You have a friend working for you. He and his wife hang out with you and your wife. You’re real friends, not just fake work friends. Your friend screws up on the job, something indefensible. The bossman reams you out and says you have to get rid of him. You agree, but you tell your boss you’re in an awkward position because of your friendship (of which your boss is familiar). “I don’t want to throw him under the bus. He feels bad enough about things as they are. I don’t want him to think I have also betrayed him,” you say, “but I know we have to make a change.” “Listen,” your boss says. “Just say I did it. You can go public in his defense, and I’ll be the bogeyman.”
Lesson: things are not always what they seem.
Your theory is a possibility, but it seems a bit extreme that the Dolan’s would agree to building an imaginary public rift between ownership and managment so that Shapiro can save face with Wedge.
This sort of thing happens all the time. A face-saving gesture. And, remember, most people probably don’t even see this as a public rift.
Yeah, i think this has gotten read too much into
I think just firing the manager is a cop-out
i think he just means, he doesn’t feel he should fire wedge as and act like he doesn’t share at least an equal amount of the blame, not “anyone who fires him is going to fix anything is stupid”
by Brick. on Jun 24, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Could be. I just think this was not a good moment to make that point.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Just casually checking enemy sites.
Very well done sir.
"I'm just here to provide street cred and a rosy outlook"- translation - unemployed life coach
i would like to hear, for once, someone make the objective case FOR wedge, and not just make the case as to why firing him will not fix this team. i think most of us who would like to see him fired accept the premise that it won’t right the ship or have a significant impact on the rest of ’09.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 24, 2009 4:10 PM EDT reply actions
I agree, but the problem is that there really isn’t an easy way to make the case for or against firing a manager. Most teams just look at the W-L record and realize that they’ve not been very good with a certain manager and try something different. Apparently the Indians are not one of them. Of course most teams don’t have the 2nd worst record in baseball right now.
to save money. no sense eating his remaining contract and paying another guy. that’s all i’ve got. i really just don’t care much either way.
Why are these threads so choppy today?? Even when I’m typing, letters come up 2 or 3 ata a time. Which, is why I apparentley typed ?? and a a.
FE WEE
I’ve always had ads though in the places where there are currently ads. Are these new ones just larger file sizes?
The site is fine if I press esc before the ads fully load… but then autorefresh doesn’t work either.
FE WEE
•The “Eric Wedge on the hot seat” chatter has reached new levels with the Tribe possessing the worst record in the AL and in the midst of a six-game losing streak. It appears slightly overplayed, as the Indians are not believed to be on the verge of making such a move at the moment. A decision on Wedge’s future is more likely to be made at season’s end.
•Apparently there was some confusion over the weekend when a reporter asked owner Larry Dolan about a potential change and Dolan responded, “I’ll talk to you later” and “I just don’t want to lie to you.” Dolan, from what I understand, was under the impression that the topic at hand was possible trades, not Wedge’s job security.
Hmmmm!
It actually preceded it. It was discussed before Jay’s article.
by dgcambridge on Jun 25, 2009 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Good honest piece Jay. This needed to be said.
I actually think players have quit on Wedge.
I can think of three guys that I would say fall into the “have quit on Wedge” column and another borderline candidate: Jhonny Peralta, Andy Marte and Brandon Phillips. I think a case could possibly be made for Milton Bradley. Peralta really seems to have regressed even further around the time he moved to third base. His public statements about him being a shortstop allude to the fact that he’s not happy at third, and if he hasn’t quit on Wedge, he has an odd way of showing he buys into the theory that him at third helps the team. Phillips had a personality clash with Wedge and got run out of town. Was that entirely Brandon’s fault? He sure didn’t seem to buy into Wedge and bought into Dusty Baker. Seems like a pretty clear case of quitting on Wedge. Andy Marte never seemed to put in any effort for Wedge, that is, when he was actually in the lineup. I’m not a Milton Bradley apologist (or fan), but he pretty much got run out of here (and many other places) too. The final straw was a blow-up with Wedge.
If we’re to assume that the main job of the manager is to manage the lineup and personalities, there’s four examples where Wedge has had some degree of shortcomings. Shapiro is either forgetting these examples or feels that Wedge was in the right in every case and he’s talking about the other guys that “never quit” on Wedge.
One more note – at least two of those guys mentioned were the major pieces Shapiro acquired in trade. It makes me wonder why Shapiro is so willing to allow his major trade returns to be, what’s the right term, mis-handling?
And the funny thing is, we’re in danger of mis-handling yet another major trade acquisition: Matt LaPorta. He comes up and sits most of the time? What’s that all about? How is Shapiro so willing to back Wedge when Wedge has mis-handled Phillips, Marte and LaPorta? At some point, it has to go back to the manager.
Regarding Phillips you obviously know very little about what went on during his years with Cleveland.
Bradley? The Expos go rid of him because of his attitude problem. Every team he’s been with since he has quickly worn out his welcome.
Peralta? You might be right; he certainly is not happy at third. Its kinda funny though that Wedge has taken a lot of heat from fans and the media for not moving Peralta to third sooner. The question has never been whether Peralta should be moved to third but when.
As to LaPorta I thought it was made pretty clear by both Shapiro and Wedge when LaPorta was called up he was not going to be an everyday player and that it was strongly implied that unless LaPorta was outstanding he was going back to minors when Hafner was recalled. If the Tribe had thought LaPorta was ready to play everyday they wouldn’t have waited until Hafner was DLed to call him up. It is not at all unusual to add to the roster for a few weeks a highly promising prospect not yet ready to fill in a need. Mike Hegan just last week went on and on how valuable it is to give a prospect a taste of the majors even if he doesn’t play everyday.
Marte? You are going to have to explain to me why you included Marte into the mix.
by JenniferMarie on Jun 24, 2009 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions
He was indeed a highly thought of prospect. when he was 21 but his status as such was based on his potential to improve and not what he accomplished. In his only year at Triple AAA while in the Atlanta organization he was .275/.372/.506/.878. Not bad numbers but not particularly great. In his 389 ABs he also struckout 83 times. He had a hole in his swing that he continued to have through 2008, he was clearly overmatched at the ML level and he had poor pitch selection.
Not all highly thought of prospects endup enjoying successful ML careers. Just look at almost any team’s top draft choices over the last ten years and you will see how many fail.
by JenniferMarie on Jun 24, 2009 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I would actually argue those numbers at age 21 in AAA are pretty great
I remember reading something by Keith Law as recently as March that said he always was a big Marte fan and wouldn’t be surprised if he still had a decent ML career
I of course have already made this argument many times. Anyone who thinks those numbers at age 21 aren’t great has some fundamental misconceptions about performance analysis for prospects. Asdrubal struggled to put up a 600+ OPS in Triple-A, but he was 20 years old at the time, and now look at him.
Of course it is also true that Marte’s K rate should have been more worrying, and there were some scouts who felt he had significant flaws in his swing even back then. Going back to my big long post a couple days ago, my point ultimately is that if Marte is going to be a bust, then the Indians are supposed to be one of the four teams out of 30 that have suspicions about him, not one of the 26 that are trying to acquire him. That takes great player evaluators.
Jen, your assertion about his struggles against big-league pitching is significantly undercut by his lack of sustained playing time. What lots of folks scream about Wedge doing to LaPorta for three weeks, Wedge did the same to Marte for about 40 weeks, and that’s the great majority of his big-league career.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Sorry Jay but Marte looked absolutely terrible at the plate everytime he has been in the majors even with Atlanta.
As to his lack of sustained playing time I guess “sustained” is in the eye of the beholder.
In 2006 from July 28th to the end of the season he was essentially an everyday player and in 178 ABs he was .226/.287/.421/.707.
He had a fair amount of playing time the first three weeks of the 2007 season before being injured. In 39 ABs he was .179/.220/.283/.378/.661.
In July and August of 2008 in July and August he had 143 ABs hitting a robust .238/.283/..378/.661. Note too that Wedge held him out against some of the tougher pitchers.
The LaPorta situation is not even close to being analogous to the Marte situation. In 2006 Marte was brought up to be an everyday player and played everyday. LaPorta from every indication I have seen was brought up solely to play on a limited basis and only for a few weeks. Interesting that you and almost everyone else point the finger at Wedge and ignore the fact that Wedge appears to have used LaPorta as Shapiro intended.
My guess is that we won’t see LaPorta again until the Tribe thinks he might be ready to play everyday with the exception of being a September call-up after the Buffalo season ends.
There has been so much Internet gripping because fans wrongfully thought the call-up of LaPorta was more than what was intended. Even Terry Pluto being completely cognizant of what that the Tribe was saying chose not to believe them thinking the Tribe was not being candid.
by JenniferMarie on Jun 24, 2009 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I never said Wedge’s handling of LaPorta was wrong or contrary to Shapiro’s intent (which I don’t even know). I will say that if he did it for 40 weeks instead of three, it would be extraordinarily wrong, as it was with Marte.
You think I need you to post Marte stats? Really? The fact that you bothered to post triple-slash stats for 39 PA shows that we’re not even speaking the same language on this. The last nine weeks of the 2006 season were the closest Marte ever got to a fair chance to play in the majors, and for a 22-year-old rookie, he did just fine. As for his handling in 2008, I’ll just say that you and I see it differently.
I am glad to know that you were watching his at-bats in Atlanta, though.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Sarcastic aren’t we?
I certainly did not mean to suggest 39 ABs was statistically significant. It was offered to rebut in part your assertion about Marte never being given the chance at extended playing time and demonstrates in 2007 at the start of the season he was given a chance until he was injured. Coupled with his 2006 stats that show fairly regular play Marte was not showing a lot of promise.
Your attitude about my posting stats is a curious one. You offered an assertion and I offered facts. Whether you were aware of the facts or not made no difference to me since not everyone reading my reply would have been aware of the stats I offered.
As to your belligerance and sarcasm it is uncalled for. I’m not impressed by your efforts to intimidate poor defenseless little old me. While I have been disagreeing with you I have not been rude.
Toodles! Maybe I’ll be back again in another couple of years.
by JenniferMarie on Jun 25, 2009 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions
Jen – I hope that you are not put off. I may completely disagree with you (or not completely, just mostly) but its intelligent discussions with valid points that make this site worth it. I, for one, do hope you post more often.
I just wanted to believe.
I actually quite like the fact that you bother to look up stats and do your homework. But as you claim to be an avid reader of this site, I assumed you would know that we have discussed Marte and dissected his numbers to an almost excruciating degree, and in particular, I have written about Marte, his track record and his handling at great length. It would be hard for even a semi-regular lurker not to be aware of this.
So that is all that I meant when I wrote: “You think I need you to post Marte stats? Really?”
Marte was given a chance at the end of 2006. For nine weeks of stats, by a 22-year-old rookie, a strong defender at a skill position, he was showing plenty of promise. And again, why look at two months of stats when we have years of stats to look at?
On the strength of that track record, Marte was given the starting job for 2007, but he lost it after an untimely trip to the DL. His only relevant stat for 2007 is his number of PA, 39, which shows that he didn’t have an opportunity to play regularly and adjust to big-league pitching. What he did with those 39 PA is not particularly significant. There is nothing unusual about even very good hitters having a weak stretch of 39 PA.
Intimidating “poor old defenseless little me?” Hardly. I don’t see you as a defenseless damsel who can be intimidated; I assume you can take a rhetorical punch and return it as well as anyone else here. If you want to paint yourself as a weak victim, that’s on you. You want me to rebut you with kid gloves, to treat you more gently than I would someone else, just come right out and say so. You don’t need to storm off in a righteous huff anyone on an Indians forum comes back with a strong response.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
That might be the case but no one was willing to claim him off waivers and put him on their 25 man roster.
I know that Tony Lastoria has talked to some scouts and most of them have concluded he had been overvalued.
Still Marte might eventually succeed and I’m not certain the Tribe has completely given up on him. The fact the Tribe held onto him and sent him to Columbus might be an indicator of that fact or it might just be an indicator the Tribe needed someone at third this year at Columbus or a combination of both.
I don’t disagree with you that his numbers for a 21 year old were good but they also showed he was not yet ready.
In any event, my intent in mentioning Marte was only to get an explanation to the assertion that Wedge is at fault regarding Marte.
by JenniferMarie on Jun 24, 2009 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions
This is 100% hindsight.
1. Those numbers show a player capable of dominating AAA at the age of 21. No reason to expect anything but progress at the point. If you see anything other than stellar in those numbers, you have a problem.
2. No one would take him because we spent 40 weeks ruining him. It would be like claiming paper towels after someone already cleaned up a spill with them.
3. It’s odd that these scouts weren’t saying Marte was overvalued when we got him but now, after he rots in the dominoes room for three years, they say that. That’s history, not scouting.
If Wedge gets fired I really hope to see Marte get a legitimate look.
I become an expert simply by doing something.
1. Yes, capable of dominating Triple A but not having dominated it.
Yes, progress should be expected but lack of substantial improvement shouldn’t be a shock. Some players reach a plateau at a relatively early age and never get much better. Raw talent can only take a player so far.
2. Might you explain how the Tribe “ruined” him? And apparently the Tribe must have permanently ruined him — beyond any possibility of fixing him — since no one was interested.
3. By 2006 I was already reading things about the still existing flaw in his swing and people questioning whether it could be fixed.
by JenniferMarie on Jun 25, 2009 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions
How can you say we permanently ruined him, given his solid performance this year? (the first consistent playing time he has had in a few years)
I wouldn’t call his performance solid. His MLE OPS is only 714, and he has only 9 unintentional walks in some 210 PA. He’s 25, and he should be better than this.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
It is not at all unusual to add to the roster for a few weeks a highly promising prospect not yet ready to fill in a need.
it’s not? you’re going to have to help me out on this one. what would be the benefit of removing a top prospect from a situation in which he was receiving regular at bats and gaining worlds of confidence in his abilities at the highest levels of baseball, in order for him to play every 3rd day and learn about sleeping in the nicer hotels of the big leagues? i fail to see the upside in that.
Mike Hegan just last week went on and on how valuable it is to give a prospect a taste of the majors even if he doesn’t play everyday.
citing the estimable mike hegan won’t necessarily get you that far…
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 24, 2009 9:52 PM EDT up reply actions
So in your expert opinion there is nothing to be learned by sitting on the bench watching ML pitchers and hitters playing? There is nothing to be learned by getting some ML ABs and discovering what he needs to still do to be ready to play in the majors?
As to Hegan I didn’t much like him on TV broadcasts. During the last year plus when I’ve had to listen to games on the internet I’ve come to appreciate his insights about the game. Most of it is credible and confirms things I already knew from things I’ve already read and heard. That is not to say that in some instances his analysis isn’t shallow or that I always agree.
by JenniferMarie on Jun 24, 2009 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
The question has never been whether Peralta should be moved to third but when.
That’s not true here. That may be the issue elsewhere, but not around here. Wedge has alienated one of his better players for no apparent reason. The defensive upgrade of Valbuena at short does not come close to making up for the runs lost by not having Happy Jhonny © at short.
I don’t think citing Mike Hegan is going to get you far here.
I become an expert simply by doing something.
It certainly appears that Jhonny is enough of a head case that a “demotion” to 3B has affected his offense. It’s not as if there isn’t precedent for leaving a clearly inferior player at SS to assuage his ego (maybe we should make him captain while we’re at it). However, I have very little sympathy for him. If you’re not particularly good at your job, and our employer asks you to perform a different job for which you are more suited, you suck it up and quit whining. You don’t crap all over the new job in protest. This is especially the case when there are not one but two new employees who are demonstrably better at the new job than you.
I understand the argument for blaming Wedge for Peralta. It’s just not the strongest argument against him. What, are we supposed to relegate Valbuena to domino duty and Cabrera to 2B so Jhonny’s feelings aren’t hurt?
Hell, Fred, lay off Peralta. He sucked before he was moved to third, so to claim he isn’t trying because he’s pouting is ridiculous. Neither Valbuena nor Cabrera are demonstrably better at shortstop than Peralta. They may be better fielders, but neither of them has shown the offensive capabilities of Peralta. Jhonny is one of the best-hitting shortstops in the AL. One of the best.
For all we know, he was disrespected. Do we know what the circumstances were of his being moved from short? Do we know why he has led the team in being personally called out by his manager? (I know, because he sucks.) Peralta is an enigma, but we don’t know the full story. Maybe he’s a drug addict, or his family has problems. Maybe Wedge keeps taunting him. Whatever the details of their locker room relation, we can’t claim to know what’s going on. People seem ready to jump to all sorts of conclusions about Peralta, probably because they don’t like his demeanor. He doesn’t look like he’s trying hard enough. He doesn’t look like he cares. Maybe he needs a more sensitive manager. Maybe he just doesn’t care.
He sucked before he was moved to third, so to claim he isn’t trying because he’s pouting is ridiculous
Key point, this.
Jhonny deserves 100% blame for his struggles, but Wedge and his staff also deserve perhaps 70% blame for not getting through to him. It isn’t a zero-sum thing — everyone should be performing better.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
By the way. I’ve been one of Peralta’s biggest fans and defenders consistently for six years now, but as with Wedge, the worm has turned for this guy a little this year. His latest struggles have pushed patience a little further than can easily be forgotten or forgiven, and I don’t think he can be held above Cabrera and Valbuena with any confidence anymore. Both the younger players are better defenders, and both have plenty of young, raw hitting talent. It’s no longer a sure thing who will be the best hitter among the three the rest of this season, let alone next season, and I don’t think it’s clear anymore who has the highest ceiling, either.
This isn’t so much a condemnation of Peralta as a statement of admiration for the other two, but having said that, I am pretty tired of Peralta schtick where he acts like he has no talent for months.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I’m with you in reconsiderations of Jhonny. I just don’t like it when he becomes the whipping boy for the Indians’ failures. The reasons for failure extend beyond him. Which is not to say he isn’t a big part of the problem.
I think it’s too early to say on either Cabrera or Valbuena, though both look good. I think Asdrubal especially gets overrated here, because we all want him to be great. There are still troubling signs, and I’m not ready to see him as the next Robbie, at least not yet. Weight might be a concern with him too.
Valbuena looks awesome for his age, but we shouldn’t count chickens before they hatch. Both AC and LV could end up as better hitters than JP, but right now I’d have to give JP the edge. I know you’re not saying these guys are sure things, but I think one of the lessons of 2008 and 2009 is that you can’t rely on players who haven’t shown sufficient and extensive experience.
You also have to figure, past performances being what they are, JP will revive eventually. Perhaps the week after Wedge is gone.
Just to be clear, I’m not really down on Peralta, and I don’t necessarily think the move to 3B is why he sucked. He sucked at the start of last season, too. I just don’t blame Wedge for asking him to move over defensively to make room for one of the clearly superior defenders. Jay’s right, in that Wedge should have gotten through to Jhonny, but not if that means leaving him at SS so he feels better about himself.
I know you’re not saying these guys are sure things, but I think one of the lessons of 2008 and 2009 is that you can’t rely on players who haven’t shown sufficient and extensive experience.
You also have to figure, past performances being what they are, JP will revive eventually. Perhaps the week after Wedge is gone.
But but but, look at those two sentences together! I think the lesson about 2008 and 2009 could just as easily be that’s there is danger in relying on players with sufficient and extensive experience.
Hell, let’s look at it this way. Do you know how many players have given the Indians average or above experience in both years? Two: Lee and Choo. Not any of our guys that came into 2008 with “sufficient and extensive experience.” (You could also expand this and say that both CC and DeRosa have done that in 08 for 09, and those guys do fit the experience model. They’re also expensive.)
Of course, if the lesson is that no player can be trusted – I’m not sure where that leaves you – except asking for more depth.
by dgcambridge on Jun 25, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, no player can be trusted. But the player with 3084 plate appearances is a better bet than someone with 200 PAs. I don’t think JP is ruined and a player and will suck forevermore, but if someone found a hole in Valbuena’s swing he could turn into Angel Berroa (although AG was already 25 when he had his rookie of the year season with the Royals).
I’m not as sure as you are. He’s already spent one full year with no bat. And this year, as far as helping the team, it’s already too late. I can’t get down on Jhonny too much, because at least he’s cheap.
Mostly I was uncomfortable with the idea that we need to go find more guys with sustained experience. Those guys are expensive, and all of ours got hurt and/or sucked in 2008/2009. I’m not saying that experience is bad (obviously its not), but maybe we just need even more quantity in young “questionable” talent. i.e. we need more Valbuenas (2008 version), not less.
by dgcambridge on Jun 26, 2009 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions
The fact of the matter is that Jhonny is possibly the best hitting shortstop in franchise history and, after being asked to move this year, he is now a no-pop third baseman. Nothing else changed. There is no statistical argument to be made that Jhonny is some sort of statue at short. He’s average in the field and tremendous with the bat. Now he gets moved to third in order to get either Valbuena or Carroll in the lineup. Jhonny happy and at short is better than either of those two anywhere in the lineup.
I become an expert simply by doing something.
Defensively at shortstop, Jhonny is slightly above-average in a good year and well below-average in a bad year. On balance, I don’t think he can be called average.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Huh? The Tribe has been publicly talking about the need to eventually move him off of short since at least the end of last season if not longer. The Tribe had him playing winter ball at third.
If my memory is correct in the fine interview Jay did of Chris Antonetti they discussed moving Peralta to third.
Moving Peralta to third has nothing whatsoever to do with Valbuena playing short. The decision was made when Cabrera was moved to short so Carroll and Valbeuna could play second.
As to Peralta’s hitting he has always been streaky and his hitting might have been affected by the move. On the other hand, in the last 6 games he is 9 for 26 with a double and 2 homers and has made a number of loud outs.
by JenniferMarie on Jun 25, 2009 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Actually, I think the decision had as much to do with poor performance in LF and 1B (moving DeRosa around) as it did anything else. They erred a year ago in not moving Blake around the field to spell 3-4 slumping hitters, and at least that’s one mistake they didn’t repeat this season.
But yes, clearly they made a priority of developing the option of using Peralta at 3B in the offseason.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
And the mere suggestion of this move was enough to throw Jhonny off his feed? I ain’t buying that. The whiff of change was enough to disrupt the fragile psyche of JP? Come on.
This is such a causal mistake: Jhonny sucks because he’s pouting about being moved. How can anyone claim this as fact? It’s pure conjecture, and not particularly well-founded conjecture at that. It’s playing, it’s taking shots in the dark. How can people speak with such certainty?
I didn’t mean to say there was anything causal about any move. I don’t think I did say that, here or ever.
Jhonny gets no free pass from me on the position change. I think he’s played a good 3B, actually, and it’s a damned shame he hit like crap for ten weeks, but I don’t think there necessarily was any connection at all.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I know you’re not saying the move caused Jhonny to suck. Or the threat of the move. I would say this is more in response to Jennifer Marie.
I’m arguing against story-telling. Establishing narratives where there may be none. Jhonny is a fat, lazy boy. When he is forced to move to second, he cries, and then he pouts. He sucks there because he doesn’t try.
Even if I don’t know much about the Phillips situation (which I do, but thanks for asking), Phillips is more than willing to make that claim himself to anyone in his vicinity when the Reds play the Indians. and in case you don’t feel like clicking the link…
“When somebody takes the joy away from the game by wanting you to be a certain way and play a certain way, that’s kind of hard for a player to perform …
[The Indians] got a new manager in 2003 (Eric Wedge) and I was put on standby. I had to be a totally different person. I couldn’t do that.”
“What they did to me was like the New York Mets going up to Jose Reyes and saying, ‘Hey, you can’t smile and you can’t play the way you play.’ There’s no chance Reyes could do that.”
That’s pretty clear evidence of a player giving up on a manager.
I already said many teams got rid of Bradley. Your apparent contradiction offers nothing to suggest Wedge made a concerted effort to work with Bradley. Ergo, you helped prove my point that Bradley is another player that couldn’t work with Wedge, aka, gave up on him.
I actually would have no problem with moving Peralta to third if it meant we could be a better team. But it’s pretty clear that Peralta isn’t happy playing third. If Wedge was doing his job of managing the locker room and his team, Peralta wouldn’t be so obvious in his displeasure. Again, another case of a player giving up on his manager.
I really don’t need to explain Marte. Jay has done that plenty over the past year plus. That link isn’t the best example of Jay explaining why Marte hasn’t been given a fair shake, but it clearly shows Shapiro saying that Wedge is responsible for the handling of Marte.
So the point remains, despite what Shapiro says, players HAVE given up on Wedge. Repeatedly. And Shapiro should realize that. He might realize it already, but his comments don’t appear to show that he realizes it.
And the other point that you completely missed is the mishandling of top prospects. Phillips was the key to the Colon trade and he was mishandled until he was run out of town for Jeff Stevens. Marte was mishandled after he was the key to the Crisp trade. And now, we have LaPorta being jerked around from AAA to the majors after he was the key to the CC trade. That’s a pretty clear pattern of misuse.
Repeatedly? That’s two head cases and Jhonny. What manager doesn’t have a few examples of punks getting their panties in a bunch when they don’t like what they’re being told? Wedge has a lot of failings, but it is generally true that the players play hard for him. It’s also pretty irrelevant if the players aren’t playing well for him.
It’s easy to cherry-pick prospects that didn’t work out and claim Wedge has mishandled top prospects. I’ll give you Marte and Phillips. What about Grady Sizemore, Asdrubal Cabrera, Victor Martinez? Shin-Soo Choo? Aaron Laffey? Cliff Lee? Hell, Travis Hafner had all of 70 PAs playing for anyone other than Eric Wedge.
And you’re just wrong on LaPorta. The team had a temporary hole to fill with Hafner on the DL, so they brought up LaPorta for less than a month. He started about half of the games. Then he was sent back down where he would have been all along but for the injury. Yeah, I wish he had played every day, just to see what he could do, but his use in those 22 games hardly counts as being jerked around.
It is probably more correct to say that Wedge does not have any clue about handling prospects who struggle in their initial few games at the major leagues. If a prospect comes up and performs like a house afire (see Francisco, Ben), then Wedge is on their bandwagon forever. If a prospect struggles (see Marte, Andy), then he is permanently in Wedge’s doghouse and will get limited opportunity to play a way out.
God help LaPorta if he struggles in his first few games as a regular when he gets called back up.
by woodsmeister on Jun 25, 2009 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions
If LaPorta doesn’t play every day for the rest of the season starting at the ASB, then I am going to be furious. The season is over, we need to get him acclimated now and go through the growing pains now, so that he is ready to go in 2010
My point is that growing pains appear unacceptable to Eric Wedge. The minor leagues are for getting ready. The majors are for polished veterans who perform. Mike Schmidt would have rotted on Eric Wedge’s bench.
by woodsmeister on Jun 25, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Agree. And I am saying I want LaPorta’s growing pains to happen now during a lost season
by Roger Dorn on Jun 25, 2009 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m not a big fan of Wedge’s, or of how he’s handled certain players (notably Marte), but I don’t think the record supports the claim that he doesn’t deal well with the struggles of young players. He’s been playing Valbuena, for example, despite a rather anemic OBP and occasional glitches in the field. He stuck with Cabrera TOO LONG last year before they finally gave up and sent him down for re-booting. He’s played Choo and has fairly quickly decided to play him against lefties, despite the “book” that said he couldn’t hit them (repeated frequently when he first got here).
What I do think is that the Indians, perhaps with Wedge’s assent (I really don’t know) have tried to fill gaps with some mediocre veterans (Michaels, Dellucci, Carroll and their ilk) and have used them too much or inappropriately (as regulars). Sometimes this was because they didn’t have a legitimate prospect to step in; but sometimes it did mean that a young player either didn’t get a proper chance (personally, I think this was true with Marte, but I know not everyone agrees) or delayed their getting a chance (we’re seeing this now with LaPorta, I think — why are we playing Garko/Francisco/DeRosa in left?). I don’t think that’s all on Wedge — I think some of it is organizational philosophy about how to build a winning team and how to develop young players early in their careers (they may be wrong, but they’re wrong together).
We’re not seeing anything with LaPorta other than an attempt to avoid backing up a truckload of cash and dumping it on the arbitration table. I’ll reconsider that opinion if he’s still in Columbus after a reasonable Super 2 buffer period has elapsed.
At this point, you’re probably right. Back when they had a chance of being competitive, giving LaPorta regular PT might have been a worthwhile gamble; if he caught on, he’d have been an upgrade over the parade of mediocre players we’ve deployed in LF (not a rap on DeRosa — he could have played elsewhere in the field).
yeah, but if we wait, we can postpone his sophomore slump to 2011
by Brick. on Jun 25, 2009 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Come one, Francisco was a real prospect, just not a very impressive one.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I can’t put Bradley in the same bucket with any of the other guys, nor can I assign any blame to Wedge for Bradley’s exit. Bradley’s problems have risen to the level of criminal charges; he has serious psychological problems. Those other guys are just a little difficult to work with. Not remotely the same thing.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I also think players have quit on Wedge—and not just those players mentioned. I believe a lot of what has occurred this year in terms of shocking underperformances derives from players fed up with Wedge’s routine.
Which shocking underperformances are you talking about? Apart from Peralta, the only hitters who have been disappointments are Sizemore (who’s been hurt), Francisco (who most people here agreed was a mirage), and Shoppach (who I don’t think looks unmotivated; he’s just not very disciplined at the plate). Garko is Garko. Meanwhile, Martinez, Cabrera and Choo have played very well, Hafner has been better than could have been expected, and DeRosa has been as advertised.
The pitching has been a disappointment, to be sure, but which of those pitchers would you say has “quit” on Wedge?
I remain unsure what I think about the idea of firing Wedge. I don’t think it will hurt, and it might send a signal to the fans that the team is trying to change things around (and to the players that lousy performances have consequences). But, I don’t think he’s caused the poor performance we’ve seen from the pitchers.
I’m reluctant to suggest it, but some of the Latino players. I wouldn’t say they’ve quit, but more accurately, they are alienated from Wedge.
Victor obviously is still in Wedge’s camp. But maybe both Rafaels, Jhonny, Fausto? It’s not uncommon for clubhouses to divide between Latin and Anglo players
I would say you’re right that Fausto and Raffie B have been very slow to respond to the suggestions made to them about how to do better. Jhonny is a mystery to me — it’s obvious that he and Wedge don’t get along, but I’m not sure I accept the view that he’s pouting. Raffie P. looks totally messed up to me; no confidence at all and scared of his own stuff at this point. I don’t think that’s Wedge’s fault, nor do I think Perez would try harder for another manager (although another manager might be able to get through to him). You’ve left out Valbuena and Cabrera, who both have looked good, in different ways.
I still think the team’s problem is basically that the pitching isn’t very good and has been weakened further by injuries and disappointing performances by Perez and Lewis, in particular.
Francisco, Shoppach and Garko aren’t Latino.
Or maybe you just think they don’t have talent.
And maybe you only think that because they aren’t Latino.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Do you think I think Francisco, Shoppach and Garko have talent?
These guys strike me as ones who have bought into Wedge’s clenched-jaw regimen.
Well, Peralta hasn’t bought into it, and until a week ago, he wasn’t doing much better.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I usually read everything here, but dear lord, I can’t believe we are going through the Marte, Phillps, and Fat Shortstop stories again. I couldn’t get through it.
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
- Ask Alex: Can Jose Reyes repeat as NL batting champ?
- U.S. Cellular Field: Home of the Chicago Cubs?
- MLB Fan Cave candidate explains the stories behind his 30 MLB mascot tattoos
- Kate Upton’s new MLB 2K12 ad is really something
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise,’ featuring the Miami Marlins
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.
