The reports I've been getting are real. He's not the same guy that was here a couple of years ago or even last year. We have to see if that's going to transfer up here at some point."
Eric Wedge, apparently — grudgingly? — announcing his eventual reunion with Agent M.
over 2 years ago
Jay
188 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Actually, it says that quote is from Wedge!
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Jul 19, 2009 11:09 AM EDT reply actions
Love the fixed, editorialized caption. It is, in fact, a remarkable quote coming from Wedge. I guess the only way to see if he means it is if Marte is brought up and gets ton of PT. That’s the only way “to see if that’s going to transfer” to ML level.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Jul 19, 2009 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions
The acid test is pretty simple — is he getting days off? Because he shouldn’t need more than two days off per month. If he’s getting more than that, then Wedge is not serious about finding out what he can do. True 14 months ago, true today.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
This still seems like a pretty strong statement to me. Roughly speaking, what kind of playing time do you think you need to invest to find out what a prospect can do? Three months of playing 25 games a month? That seems like a pretty expensive investment in terms of the value of playing time. (And yes, I realize that the Indians, of all teams, can afford to spend that.)
But I think plenty of organizations trying to introduce guys in situations where they share playing time. Do you think that is insufficient? Are is this specific to Marte and his record/skill set? 4 times a week isn’t enough?
I think the idea of “protecting” guys and sharing playing time is more about the team’s run scoring than it is about the hitter’s development.
Seems to me — and I’m no expert — that nothing could be better for a hitter’s development than reps, reps and more reps, as long as he isn’t completely overmatched. And if he’s completely overmatched, he shouldn’t be on the bench, he should be sent down. If he’s not overmatched, a rookie certainly won’t learn to hit certain pitchers by watching from the dugout. I don’t think any major league hitter would disagree with that.
So I believe that in general. Do I also think that Marte in particular has a tough time getting warm and staying warm? Yes, I think his track record at least suggests that.
Bottom line, for Marte or any other prospect you really want to succeed, why would you play him 18 times a month when you could play him 28 times a month? If he’s healthy, what possible good reason can there be for doing that?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
The 2009 Indians don’t have a reason for that. There’s not much weighing against it. And I’m sure it’s better from the prospect point of view.
But 14 months ago, that wasn’t true. And I’m wondering if you’re asking for a minimum amount of playing time before you can figure out “what you have,” and roughly where you think that might be. But maybe this is just going to devolve in the Marte 2008 discussion again.
I didn’t set the standard for giving someone an extended shot, the Indians did — with Phillips, with Barfield — hell, with Aaron Effing Boone. We’re talking about 25+ starts a month for four months.
And now, just for fun, here’s Andy Marte’s major league starts per month, for every regular-season month since his first callup.
10, 2, 0, 1,
0, 0, 0, 3, 21, 25,
12, 3, 0, 0, 0, 1,
4, 7, 5, 17, 22, 13,
0, 0, 0, ?.
So the most starts he’s ever had in any four-month period is not, in fact, 100, but rather 57.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Attitude? Where do you read that in Wedge’s comments? I don’t think it involves attitude whatsoever.
This isn’t really directed at you, Roger, but in general. I think there is this idea that Wedge didn’t like his attitude, or he wasn’t a “grinder.” I have never read the situation that way. I think this has always been about his approach at the plate and his swing path. Wedge didn’t see how he could be successful with that approach. My interpretation of Wedge’s comments are that whatever Marte’s been told to work on, he’s done that, and they have to see the work he’s done is going to transfer to the MLB level. Period.
Well put – I found myself making the same lazy-logic leap…
Stuart Dean
by stuart dean on Jul 19, 2009 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions
I disagree wholeheartedly, but don’t feel like getting into it. We’ve all hashed this out a million times. Let’s just be happy he has his career back on track. As for Stuart’s comment, it is not lazy to believe that Marte struggled because he didn’t get consistent playing time.
As for Stuart’s comment, it is not lazy to believe that Marte struggled because he didn’t get consistent playing time.
No, but to think that’s the only reason is close-minded and reeks of amateurish analysis.
I am sorry, perhaps I should qualify everything I say very specifically, but nowhere did I say that was the only reason.
The idea that Wedge can look at a small sample of at bats and determine that a guy doesn’t have the “right approach”, “swing plane”, or whatever BS he used to justify not playing the guy, reeks of amateurish coaching.
To me, it is really convenient to say that Marte has gone down to AAA, and “changed his approach” and “fixed the whole in his swing” instead of admitting we messed up with his talent.
The idea that Wedge can look at a small sample of at bats and determine that a guy doesn’t have the "right approach", "swing plane", or whatever BS he used to justify not playing the guy, reeks of amateurish coaching.
Yes, because managers and hitting coaches always speak of hitting mechanics as BS. Please, Roger. And it was over 600 AB’s at the MLB level, and day after day of watching BP. It wasn’t three weeks.
Maybe Marte would’ve figured it out with extended playing time at the MLB level. Or maybe he wouldn’t.
I didn’t even think that the part about Wedge using him fairly was open for debate. I thought even the Marte detractors conceded that point.
Ultimately, what happened was that Marte lost confidence, and with sporadic playing time was not able to regain his stroke. Obviously, the best bet once it became clear that he wouldn’t be playing every day was to hope that we could get him through waivers and to the minors the following season (2009.) Luckily he cleared, and he has been able to get every-day playing time finding his confidence and his talent has started to show he can still hit a little.
I link to the below, here, because I find it very interesting from a scout’s opinion that I really value. Keith Law did an interview with MLBTR prior to this season.
MLBTR: A few years ago you were asked which player you thought would become a star but never did, for reasons unknown. You answered Carlos Pena. Since then he’s put up excellent numbers, so who takes the mantle now?
Law: I’m asked this sort of question in chats all the time, but since I didn’t start scouting amateur players at all until 2003 – and it might be more accurate to say that I started seeing amateur players in 2003, but didn’t learn to evaluate them for some time after that – most of my answers would come from the perspective of my old role as a stat analyst. Andy Marte’s probably the best answer I can give, especially since I did see him in his first spring with Cleveland and loved his swing, so he’s a case where I could offer both perspectives and still missed on him. And do we have a good idea why Jerome Williams never developed?
Obviously, it’s only one scouts opinion and he doesn’t even work for an MLB team, but what about Marte’s swing does Law love and Wedge hate?
To answer your question, I don’t know. But that was also over three years ago at this point. From what I’ve seen, Marte has never had an answer for pitchers attacking him on the outer half of the plate. Not that he has to hit the ball to right field necessarily, but he just couldn’t do anything with it. And I’ve seen a ton of games.
Let me just say this. It’s interesting how different our perspectives are here. You saw that quote and because you feel so strongly about how Wedge handled Marte, that you immediately thought “attitude.”, or that Wedge destroyed him…or whatever, I don’t want to speak specifically for you. Whereas I didn’t even consider that as part of his answer. Do I think Wedge could have played him more consistently and perhaps done better with him? Sure, but not to any great extent. I still lay most of the blame on Marte.
But I look forward to seeing Marte again, and hope that he shows something.
Also, to add one more point.
The reason I take this perspective is that we have (had?) an obviously talented player that both scouts and the numbers suggest has a chance to be special.
Why if you are the coach or the FO should we treat him like Ryan Garko as a prospect? We should be giving him every chance to succeed.
The only reason? No. A reason that ultimately was determinative? Very possibly.
Nobody really can dispute that Marte looked bad at the plate. The belief about Marte was that (a) he would never work out his issues without several consecutive months of regular playing time, and (b) he might well work out his issues given that playing time.
Beyond that, the organizational issues — not really about Marte specifically — were that © several consecutive months of regular playing time is the standard treatment for rookies who are elite prospects, (d) this matter was (and to some degree still is) of immense strategic importance to the club’s long-term interests, (e) it appeared to be left in the hands of the manager, (f) a matter of such long-term strategic importance is above the manager’s pay grade.
Did Marte suffer because of his playing time? No, not from what I can tell. I think he had real problems with his swing and his approach, and it’s his fault that he developed them and failed to respond to coaching in Triple-A in 2007. But that one mistake isn’t enough to throw a guy away, and his problems were never going to be fixed under Wedge.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
This isn’t a direct response to the content in your post, Jay, but just in general.
The whole Marte argument irritates me for a couple of reasons.
1) The assumption that Wedge mishandled Marte. It is quite possible that this is the case, but none of us really know. If you assume that, then you’re also assuming that Marte likely would’ve succeeded under a different manager. Again, quite possible, but still an assumption. And it could be argued that it’s a significant assumption if you’ve watched him play over the last 3 years.
2) An unwillingness by some to accept a different possibility other than Wedge just doesn’t like Marte. It’s basically my argument from above that perhaps Wedge and staff have not seen what they think they need to see in a major leaguer. The ignorance or complete dismissal of this possibility by some is quite irritating to me. I just like to try to go further than the “high-school coach doesn’t like me” argument when this issue is discussed.
But as Jay mentioned, Marte should be treated like an elite prospect because of his track record, regardless of the reasons you provided to not play him. He was not.
We need to put our highest ceiling players in the best possible chance to succeed, even if it means going through some of their struggles with them. It’s not like we were in a race last year or this year.
1) The assumption that Wedge mishandled Marte. I think the assumption is that Marte was not put in a position where he was remotely likely to succeed, and that is considered “mishandling.” I guess the counter-argument is … what … that he might have failed anyway? But that point I think basically is a given, or at least it has been conceded by most. This ultimately isn’t about whether Marte would have failed or succeeded, but rather whether he should have been put in the best possible position to succeed. I think you would agree that he was not.
2) A different possibility other than Wedge just doesn’t like Marte. I hope you would agree that my non-cartoon version, posted twice above, isn’t all that narrow-minded or speculative. I think you would find that practically everyone who is vaguely “pro-Marte” would subscribe to that statement, and few would insist that it boils down to Wedge not liking Marte personally.
Incidentally, as I understand it, Marte is about the nicest guy in the world and is considered a great teammate in the clubhouse, so it’s highly unlikely that Wedge dislikes him, let alone that his dislike it the reason for not playing the guy.
Also incidentally, let’s remember that we’re all pro-Marte here.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
It would be hilarious if Marte came here every time he’s down on himself. Maybe Jay can do a chat with him.
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
I hope you would agree that my non-cartoon version, posted twice above, isn’t all that narrow-minded or speculative. I think you would find that practically everyone who is vaguely "pro-Marte" would subscribe to that statement, and few would insist that it boils down to Wedge not liking Marte personally.
Agreed. That’s why I used the word “some.”
To split hairs further:
Perhaps Wedge and staff have not seen what they think they need to see in a major leaguer. The ignorance or complete dismissal of this possibility by some is quite irritating to me.
The first sentence is quite possibly true. But it doesn’t mean it’s a correct assessment. Eric Wedge and his staff are light years ahead of me in their assessments of big league players. But they’ve also proved to be fallible. Their fallibility implies the possibility of being wrong about a onetime elite prospect.
Yes, I understand the pro-Marte thing, even if it’s sometimes tongue-in-cheek. And I’m not anti-Marte….it’s just I’m not as anti-Wedge with this particular argument as many others are.
Disclaimer – I’m short on time here, but there is one other part of the discussion that you brought up somewhere else in the thread – the whole organizational philosophy of “protecting” prospects when they get promoted. I think they’re probably too careful to a fault sometimes, but most of the current regular lineup that became established major leaguers in Cleveland was protected to some degree. And most returned to the minor leagues before fully establishing themselves in Cleveland. They all vary and their not apples-to-apples comparisons to Marte in terms of prospect pedigree and actual chances given, but there are some similarities here. Hafner was sent to the minors one month into the 2003 season. Peralta shared some time with Cora. Sizemore was protected against lefties. Choo received sporadic playing time until the second half of last year. Cabrera spent time in AAA last year. Victor probably was the closest to being handed a job and left alone.
I guess my point is that while not all these guys had the prospect pedigree as Marte did, most did not receive the consistent playing time you’ve called for. And they all became pretty good offensive players. Again, it’s not quite apples-to-apples, so I’m sure folks can fire away at this argument. And I’m sorry if I was too rushed this morning to be very clear. Just an interesting thought I had.
Isn’t such protection for young players standard for all teams? The Indians were careful with Manny and Thome when they came up. Pitchers seem to be a different deal, but the standard there is David Clyde, who pitched in the bigs right out of high school. But the problem with him was that he was overused, and hurt his arm. (By the way, this year’s Tribe could use a pitcher as good as Clyde was for the Indians in 1978, his age 23 season.)
Pitchers need pitch-count protection, but maybe that’s all. I heard broadcasters talking about the Oakland rotation, that the A’s front office decided it wouldn’t do any damage to have their young pitching throwing in the big leagues.
Yes, to varying degrees. That’s my point though. You can argue the way they handled Marte wasn’t all that dissimilar to the others I mention above. The others showed something or started producing by 600 at-bats, for the most part.
Another homer from Andy tonight, by the way.
Sorry, I was just looking for some other example of a flippant remark and thought of you and some of your comments related to Wedge. Not that you would say that exactly. No offense intended.
OK, here’s the load of crap argument – Hafner in 2003, Sizemore in 2004 (and was going to start 2005 in AAA until Juan Gone shockingly came up lame), Choo in 2006, Peralta in 2005 (45 AB’s in April before putting up a .967 OPS in May). None of these guys were handed the consistent playing time you request above. Again, positional situations and other factors do not make this an apples-to-apples comparison.
For the most part, these guys finally got their opportunity while the Tribe wasn’t considered a contender, so that was to their advantage. The valid criticism of Wedge/Shapiro is the obvious hesitancy to commit to the prospect when the club is expected to contend.
Okay, let me be more specific. This is an argument that you can make if for some reason you’re desperate to make it. If you were to be asked the simple question, were these situations the same, objectively, they weren’t at all the same.
You evidently are unaware that one of the more notorious arguments here ever was over Peralta’s playing time at the start of 2005. The fact is that Peralta started 15 of the first 22 games of the season, after having basically not played in the majors at all in 2004. He started 35 of the first 50 and 49 of the next 50. Yes, he was a little bit slow-walked into it, but even at the start, he was playing 70% of the time, and he was very inexperienced at that point.
There is a difference between the “have a look around and play a little” callup and actually giving a prospect a full-time job. Hafner, Victor, Sizemore, Choo and Peralta each had the former, and then after that, they also each had the latter, regardless of how they’d done in their getting-acquainted period. Marte had the former in 2006 — and did just fine, actually — and as for the latter, he got three weeks in 2007. That is the crucial — and clear-cut — difference between his opportunities and everyone else’s.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Okay, let me be more specific. This is an argument that you can make if for some reason you’re desperate to make it. If you were to be asked the simple question, were these situations the same, objectively, they weren’t at all the same.
Agreed. Didn’t say they were the same. The similarity is that, in general, is that all these guys pretty much had to “earn” (not my word) more consistent playing time.
And to finally convince you I’m barely halfway-serious with these posts…the fact that the other guys finally did show their ability is a very good reason that Marte should have been given more run last year.
After reading your points on Peralta, let me just ask you this, Jay.
If Peralta didn’t have the May that he had in 2005, would they have traded Cora? Shapiro stated part of the reason for trading Cora was “I didn’t feel like we were going to keep up our end of the bargain of playing time that we had communicated to him.”
Now part of that equation was Belliard as well, but I’m interested in your take on that.
Yeah, it’s pretty clear that Plan A was to give Cora about a third of the starts at shortstop, plus a few starts at second base, pinch-hitting and -running, etc. … and once you take basically all of the shortstop starts off the table, he’s no longer starting half the games.
But look at the contrast — this was at the start of a contending season. In Marte’s case, even once the season is totally dumped, even then he’s getting the 70 percent, not the 98 percent!
So much of this hinges on that April 2007 injury that Marte suffered, which led to an unusual circumstance. Marte started 12 of the first 13 games in 2007 — and was a defensive replacement in the 13th! — and if he’s not injured, he probably starts at least 85 of the first 100, even if he continues to struggle. My view has always been — both in terms of what the club owes Marte and in terms of what the team should do strategically — that when they decided to keep Blake at 3B at Marte’s expense, Marte should have had an iron-clad playing-time IOU for 2008. Obviously, the Indians disagreed.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
They didn’t have much confidence in Marte, because Blake played a ton at third in Spring Training.
And it wasn’t just choosing Blake over Marte. When Marte was starting at 3B, Blake was mostly at 1B, I believe. They also chose Garko over Marte.
You’re talking about spring training 2008, right? That’s my point, the pre-2007 status quo should have been restored, but that was never their plan. As is often lampooned, this was a genuine situation where they were overly concerned with doing the right thing by Blake, to the complete disregard of same for Marte.
In spring training 2007, I don’t think Blake played much 3B.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
No, 2007. I remember thinking it was significant because they were evidently trying to see if Blake could be their fallback.
Not sure if they were concerned about doing the right thing by Blake, it was more that they were concerned about doing the right thing for the team, in their opinion.
Yes, but feeling strongly about a secondary factor can cloud the judgment on a primary factor. They had some concern that Blake didn’t hit as well while playing the outfield, but I don’t think that’s a legitimate, primary factor. Instead, we had other guys hitting terribly in the outfield, and fielding terribly as often as not.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I’m trying to interpret what you mean, so please correct me if necessary. Are you saying Blake was moved in part due to a concern about him hitting better in the infield? If so, that’s the first I’ve ever thought of that, much less heard of it. Hmmm. My take is that they felt Blake and Garko were a better option for success. Nothing really more than that.
By the time Marte was healthy again, Blake and Garko were each on their way to an outstanding month of May, the team was winning, and they didn’t want to upset the apple cart.
That’s my point, the pre-2007 status quo should have been restored, but that was never their plan.
The only way that would’ve happened is if Shapiro dealt Blake in the off-season. I doubt there is a manager around who would’ve made that change going into spring training, not on a team coming off a 96-win season. And not with guys who either had a decent year or a good year.
And not that it really mattered, but last spring was not a good one for Marte. He hit a few homers toward the end of the spring, but his fielding was atrocious. I watched a few games on STO and remember at least twice thinking that Marte was either flat-out scared of the ball or didn’t care (should be noted that I’ve never seen him do that in the bigs). I have posted this before, but if you’re trying to impress your manager to get a shot on the big-league roster, that’s not the way to go about it. Especially if that manager is Eric Wedge.
If I get some time later, I’ll try to find how many games Blake played at 3B in ST 2007. It was pretty obvious to me that Marte was being given a very short rope, and he would be replaced if injured or ineffective out of the gate. And that can be criticized.
I recall comments about the sorry state of the infield at Winter Haven. Another excuse for Marte, I know.
The only way that would’ve happened is if Shapiro dealt Blake in the off-season. I doubt there is a manager around who would’ve made that change going into spring training, not on a team coming off a 96-win season.
I have no idea why you’d think this. The way it happens is that you start 2008 the same way you start 2007 — with Blake expected to play RF and 1B most of the time, and available as depth at 3B. And you get there in part by dumping Michaels in the offeseason rather than in May. It has nothing to do with trading Blake.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Well, perhaps. But based on the way they finished the 2007 season, they had pegged Garko and Gutz as regulars, with Victor getting some time at 1B as well. Based on how you felt at the end of the 2007 season, would you have been willing to kick Gutz to the bench for Marte? And if you were willing to do that, would you still been willing to do it after watching him in ST? Maybe, but I can also see why it didn’t happen.
2) A different possibility other than Wedge just doesn’t like Marte. I hope you would agree that my non-cartoon version, posted twice above, isn’t all that narrow-minded or speculative. I think you would find that practically everyone who is vaguely "pro-Marte" would subscribe to that statement, and few would insist that it boils down to Wedge not liking Marte personally.
Of course. My posts generally are directed at the few.
I don’t remember seeing anyone claim it has been personal. The evidence used typically is one of Wedge not liking Marte’s approach or something of that nature.
The constant bunting was completely bizarre though, and I have not seen anything like it during Wedge’s entire tenure as manager. This alone tells me Marte was being treated differently than anyone else.
Another interesting thought is what does this mean for JP? Or is it too much to expect Wedge to play Mr. Marte after he’s been readded to the 40-man and brought up? I’m thinking his ol’ spot on the bench is still there waiting for him.
I just wanted to believe.
I think the obvious move is send Valbuena back to Columbus for more seasoning and service time issues. Go with Jhonny at SS, Asdrubal at 2B, and Marte at 3B for the rest of the season.
If I see Peralta back at SS … I burn everything that says Indians I see.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 19, 2009 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
you know. . . he makes the routine plays better than any SS in baseball. i mean, boy, if you hit the ball right at JhP, you are finished, and that is saying something!
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jul 19, 2009 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
i think you both need to lighten up. cripes.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jul 19, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Just goofing around. Do you know how bad it feels to have one of your favorite players revealed to be a bum? I thought Jhonny had breakout potential, and look. Jhonny Peralta is a bum.
BP had Peralta with a robust 20% breakout rate (Marte, by the way, was listed at 47% breakout rate and may yet meet his PECOTAs pretty well).
PECOTA had Peralta at .261/.327/.425. Marte at .243/.297/.414 in 232 plate appearances.
oh i know the pain. JP has been one of my favorite indians since the 2007 postseason. i had huge hopes for him this year. . . i may have even predicted that he would hit 30 HR this year. did i say that? maybe. we’ll never know for sure . . .
- looks around furtively *
ironically, according to UZR, JP is having his best year since 2005 defensively
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jul 19, 2009 8:08 PM EDT up reply actions
er. . . that was supposed to be an asterisk, not a bullet point. probably should have used that preview button.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jul 19, 2009 8:09 PM EDT up reply actions
meant shortstop.
UZR/150 says he’s been + 7.2 at SS this season, the first time since 2003 he has actually been above average in the field (and i was wrong. . . actually he was better in 2008 than he was in 2005, although he was below average both years).
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jul 19, 2009 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Pluto suggests he’d be replacing Garko:
If Garko is traded, they could promote Andy Marte (.322, 12 HR, 52 RBI) from Columbus. Marte can play first and third.
I’ve had a gut feeling Garko is close to being traded. No basis for that just a feeling.
My money says Giants or Mets if it happens before the trade deadline.
by world dictator on Jul 19, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions
The Giants could definitely use a corner infielder to keep pace with the Dodgers, but I think Peralta may be a better choice for them. Undeniably, Peralta is the better player, and if they use him at 3rd, they can shift Sandoval to first. Certainly Garko is the easier player to pry away, however. I don’t know how much he is really worth.
dude is only 25. seems like he’s been around forever to us, but that’s still pretty young in the scheme of things. ryan howard won ROY at age 25. youk was what, 26? before getting a starting job in boston, and at age 30 he’s a completely different player than he was at age 25. raul ibanez was much older than marte before he ever experienced ML success or even got significant playing time above AAA. hell, look at the careers of scott hatteberg and casey blake, and marte is nowhere near as old as those guys were when they finally became mlb starters.
i’m not saying marte is directly comparable to any of those guys, but i think for those in the “marte had his chance and now he’s a non-prospect” school of thought, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jul 19, 2009 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions
The fact that Marte cleared waivers might one day end up being part of Cleveland lore.
by afh4 on Jul 19, 2009 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Phil Nevin. Then again, that could have been textbook PED case.
"Some days are better than others, but it's a long season."
— The Inestimable Eric Wedge
Nevin is an interesting comp. His 2001 season (41 HRs in his age 30 season) was probably funny-ball, But Nevin was a first-round draft choice with early success in minors and not much in the bigs. A late bloomer, but his productive years were limited. He didn’t break out until he was 28.
Anybody willing to bet Marte actually gets a fair shot? I say he starts a few games—just like spring 2007—and commits a minor infraction and then Jamey Carroll starts a few games, and then the process again devolves into farce.
The great risk is once Marte is here he either plays or sits on the bench. He will not pass through waivers again.
I also think Wedge has had to eat crow, and with his W-L record he’s in no position to bluster.
You believe this with no basis other then the fairy tale that Wedge inherently hates Marte. I’m not pointing this at any one person, but this is ridiculous guys.
There’s no reason to believe that Marte is being forced on Wedge.
There’s no reason to believe that Shapiro and the rest of the front office stood by helplessly as Wedge masterminded a nefarious plot against Marte
And there’s no reason to believe that Wedge “hates” Marte and refuses to play him.
You can disagree with the handling of Marte, but let’s stop pretending that the cause of it is based in some nefarious plot or a simple disdain for Marte personally.
The Indians Front Office and coaching staff made an informed decision, together, based on all the available information (major league AB, spring training, AAA stats, batting practice,etc). Using that information they came to a different conclusion then you did. Prospect evaluation isn’t a science its subjective. And considering the fact that Marte easily passed through waiver’s I’d say that the FO’s decision,even if you disagree, isn’t as horrible as you think
…Not trying to be a jerk, I’m just saying.
by world dictator on Jul 19, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
No one is suggesting it is nefarious. Ultimately, the concern I have is whether or not Wedge really knows what he is doing or the right person to coach this team.
I agree, it is ridiculous. And none of us wants to open up another forum on the Agent M affair.
Such speculation is outlandish, I agree. But it is outlandish because the way Marte was treated was outlandish. Sitting for weeks, being pinch hit for, bunting, etc. Much of it was incomprehensible. You could observe it and try to figure out why it had been done that way, and not come up with any rational explanations. So, naturally, you tend to speculate. None of it makes much sense.
There is much projection and dramatization here of Wedge’s relationship with Marte. I consider them valid because Wedge—usually a predictable man, and seemingly reasonable—behaves in inexplicable ways toward Marte. That said, I don’t believe there’s a “nefarious plot.” And, I agree that it’s mere speculation to believe Wedge hates Marte and refuses to play him. But, damn, what else you got to explain his treatment? It appears to be irrational. That’s observable. What are his motives? Wedge and Marte are probably the only people who know that.
I don’t think anybody really believes that Wedge hates Marte — that’s the cartoon representation of what is truly and quite reasonably believed. Wedge was notably — and quotably — not a fan of Marte’s conditioning, response to coaching or approach at the plate. (I don’t think he ever questioned Marte’s work ethic or game preparation, issues which are often confused or conflated with the ones he did complain about, but which are not exactly the same thing.)
The reasons this is at issue are (at least) twofold.
One, as noted above, playing time decisions eventually add up to long-term strategic consequences, which should not be left in the hands of the manager. Specifically, it is Shapiro’s responsibility to contravene the manager’s instincts (which are subjective and inherently imperfect anyway) for winning one game at a time where they interfere with the team’s best long-term interests, e.g., squandering a significant asset to the point where it’s worthless. Look at it this way: If Marte’s problems were correctable, then this was a mistake on the order of throwing away $30-40 million. Only the GM is allowed to waste that kind of money, and for the GM to abdicate that responsibility to one of his employs is frankly a kind of incompetence.
Two, Wedge’s judgment on player evaluation is highly questionable in any event. He has demonstrably allowed his subjective view of approach and mechanical issues to override objective data. That would be fine if he had a good track record for evaluating the subjective elements well. It is fair to say, however, that he has no such track record. I would remind the peanut gallery that Marte sat on the bench while Michaels, Dellucci and Garko all put up terrible numbers for weeks on end — and while Hafner was on the DL and Francisco remained in Buffalo — all evidently to ensure that Blake would not be permitted to excel as an outfielder rather than butchering third base. In other words, if the best defense of Marte’s handling was that it was based on the best, subjective evaluation of Wedge and his staff, that’s still a pretty piss-poor defense.
Too much is made of the fact that he cleared waivers. When a player is out of options and has never established himself as a viable major leaguer, he is going to clear waivers more often than not. It’s vastly different from Michael Aubrey clearing waivers with one option left, let alone Jordan Brown going unselected in Rule 5. A team selecting Marte would have to meet all three of these qualifications: (1) Already out of the postseason hunt before play even begins. (2) No currently signed and healthy starting 3B. (3) No top-level prospect ready to claim the job.
Any team not meeting ALL THREE of those qualifications would not pick up Marte, in part because the presumption around the game is that a player’s current team knows him better than anyone else, and in part because if all you did was look at his stats, you’d assume he was terrible. He was terrible, and his being put on waivers means that his current team thinks he’ll continue to be terrible.
Having said that … it is fair to say that the Indians do not deserve the benefit of the doubt on evaluation issues.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 19, 2009 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
I don’t think your post, while insightful, is responding to my point. Like I said above, criticize and disagree with the way Marte was handled, but base it on facts, not some Hollywood B movie storyline that has no basis in reality.
In other words its fair to say Marte was mishandled and should’ve been given more playing time. It’s not fair to say Wedge has some strong personal dislike for Marte and won’t give him a shot. You might call it a cartoonish interpretation of what’s being, but I very much disagree. To be fair I think this lies at the feet more of the anti Wedge people than the Pro Marte people.
by world dictator on Jul 19, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with.
The cartoon version is that Wedge dislikes Marte (and Peralta, and Phillips and …)
The reality — based on facts — seems to be that Wedge doesn’t like Marte’s conditioning, response to coaching, and approach at the plate, and that his dislike for those attributes of Marte cost him significant opportunities relative to what we would expect to be given to an elite prospect.
And you disagree with … what, exactly?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
how is this not green?
I’ll add to it that one of the reasons all three must apply is no other team is stupid enough to have Marte on their 25-man roster as a bench guy. Only a roster managed by Wedge would ever do that.
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
It’s not green, because we’ve been down this path a 100 times. Most people know how they view the topic by now, but it keeps coming back.
true, but it is green haha. i guess i just like seeing it again when it’s there to prove people wrong/convince new ones.
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
I tried to give it a slightly fresh spin, but it’s still the S.O.S. in the end.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I’d do another one of those MS Paint boats, but I’m afraid I wouldn’t know how to draw a chinstrap beard on a skull-and-crossbones flag.
Steel Nick
As if things were’nt depressing enough, Same Old Story is floating away.
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
by westbrook on Jul 21, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
by westbrook on Jul 21, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Good call. I have no idea what thread this was in. I went back trying to find how this all started, found the SS Mark Ellis with Peter and I in it.
But Tyler started it all with the SS Keep Kelly. We didn’t make a boat for him though.
Steel Nick
It came from what ended up being a pretty funny thread thanks to Jay’s obsession with the personalization feature on Indians.com. I still want a Chootierrez shirt.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Jul 21, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
A) That should read “Peter and myself,” yes? No? Peter and me? I’m fuzzy here.
B) Just noticed the “Same Old Story” part in the SS Jhonny. Subtle.
Steel Nick
“Peter and me.” “Myself” basically should never used, nor “herself” or “himself,” unless it’s as a reflexive object — “I hurt myself.”
The easy test with me vs. I is just to remove the other person’s name.
The other way to do it is just to know the rule, which actually is simple enough … I/he/she/we/they for subject (followed by a verb) and me/him/her/us/them for object of either a verb (“he hit me”) or of a preposition (“from him,” “to them”).
It’s pretty puzzling why people struggle with this. I don’t think it could take longer than five minutes of focus to learn the rule once and get it right for the rest of your life.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
On second thought, there is one common construction that is understably confusing, and that is that the the object of a passive verb is supposed to be the subject pronoun, not the object pronoun. That is, “It was them” is wrong and “It was they” is correct. But hardly anyone talks like that, and I think the “wrong” construction must be bordering on correct usage by this point.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I really think you’re overdoing it with the “anti Wedge” “Pro Marte” statements. I don’t think many (intelligent, anyway) fans honestly believe that Wedge has a personal dislike of Marte and thus, refused to play him. The handling was wrong, which we’ve almost all agreed upon. But you’re playing it off like anyone who supports Marte being recalled is a child, and screaming “na na na na” in Wedge’s face. Marte clearly made adjustments that worked. A lot of that probably had to do with everyday playing time, but I’m sure there was more to it. You seem to be mistaking the “Wedge vs Marte” thing as serious; it’s a joke. It’s a joke because it is overdone a bit, so it’s blown up more for comedic reasons.
I’m sure Wedge isn’t the biggest Marte fan, his frustration was obvious. But Wedge isn’t a Peralta fan, either. He’s still an everyday player. For Marte’s horrific failure in the majors, it’s Wedge’s fault, and it’s Marte’s. Wedge wasn’t some “mastermind”, but it’s also hard for a young player to hit when he is hardly ever playing.
In the end, Marte might have not been ready.
I don’t think many (intelligent, anyway) fans honestly believe that Wedge has a personal dislike of Marte and thus refused to play him.
If I disagree, does it mean I’m not intelligent?
I can’t imagine Andy Marte starting, or playing, for the Indians next year if the current front office and coaching staff stay in place.
Paul Hoynes’ response to a reader asking about the future of Marte.
Even more interesting to me was the rest of Hoynes’ answer:
Marte can be a six-year free agent at the end of the season. I would imagine he’s already got his bags packed.
I don’t understand all of the transaction rules, but if this is true it seems like the club has a real incentive to get him up to the majors ASAP before they lose him for good.
Correct. We actually have all the way until the pre-Rule 5 draft deadline to roster him. At that point, he’s no longer on a minor league contract and thus not eligible for minor league free agency. He’s on a major league contract and thus eligible for major league free agency … after another four years of service time.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I think Marte leaving would have more to do with a lack of room on the major league roster, minus a trade.
Look at our talent in AA and above. We’re pretty stacked at every position.
by world dictator on Jul 19, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah I meant to add that caveat. But then again there’s no such thing as too much pitching, especially in the minors.
by world dictator on Jul 19, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I was looking at Marte’s AAA numbers earlier today and it is hard to argue his performance isn’t better than it has been at any point since he came to the organization. But even independent of age, the numbers aren’t as good as his AAA debut with Richmond in the Braves system. His plate discipline got lost somewhere along the way and has never come back. Which means to be a successful hitter, he’s going to have to have a pretty good contact rate and decent power – not an easy combination. But of course Jhonny Peralta isn’t all that different in this regard. Reports on Marte’s defense have been good, but I’m not sure what to do with that. But the big difference is then salary. Marte’s got 2+ years of service time and is not likely to see a huge pay raise in his first year of arbitration, whereas Peralta is $4.6M next season and has a $7M 2011 club option (and the pro-rated portion of this year’s $3.4M). If Jhonny isn’t a part of the long-term future of the team, I think there are good reasons to trade him now. This doesn’t suggest Andy is in any way part of the long-term future, but he certainly looks like he is an adequate filler.
Marte will not reach arbitration for 2010 regardless. Depending on his 2010 performance, we’d be looking at perhaps $4 million for 2010 and 2011 combined, compared with $11.6 million for Peralta, and then two more years under club control as well.
More significant may be that Peralta has shown more capacity to regress than to improve at this point, and Marte may be seen to have turned that corner. I am not at all sold on Marte at this point, by the way — I don’t see how you can succeed with that kind of piss-poor walk rate without being an extreme contact hitter, which Marte never has been.
Ultimately, I agree with your conclusion. Neither one of these guys is a core player, and one of them is cheaper and the other is more marketable.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
If Marte becomes the major leaguer he was projected to be, that would not only be a significant lift for the team, but another position player that Shapiro was right in trading for.
Et tu, Coco.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Jul 19, 2009 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions
For whatever it may be worth, Lastoria said he expects LaPorta and Marte to be up here for the Toronto series. Gimenez and takeyourpickonanyreliever to be out.
I’m joking, but I think Wedge gets nervous if he doesn’t have a catcher on the bench. He won’t pinch run for Shoppach with the game on the line.
Marte hit his 15th HR tonite. Columbus announcers commenting on how he’s really played himself back into the picture. Interesting that they emphasized what a great clubhouse presence he’s been all year, and that all the brass at AAA and above are echoing the same talking points.
My impression was that a lot of the recent kerfuffle surrounding Marte has been divided equally between a pending callup and a pending trade. In other words, Marte might be included in a deal as likely as seeing Cleveland soon. One or the other.
If we go through all of this, just to trade Andy…I’m going to be ill.
by supermarioelia on Jul 20, 2009 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Roger (I think?) had it right. We don’t trade the guy making the minimum, we trade the other guy.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I totally agree. Just relaying my impressions. Marte’s coaches and fellow players all testify that he’s really dedicated himself this season and turned a lot of heads with his play both at the plate and on the field. He’s been “Da Man”. But while the Tribe brass has been impressed, there’s no consensus on his immediate place in Cleveland.
They talked a bunch about Peralta, and whether his value was high enuf to trade right now. Like if JP could be moved, Marte would get the promotion right away. If not, there’s a perceived reluctance to move JP back to SS, and so, whither Marte? It’s obviously been a hot topic of discussion in Columbus recently.
Trade Garko. Play Marte at first. Then LaPorta can stop “learning” how to be a first baseman and move back to left. And JP stays at third, Asdrubal at short and Valbuena at second. An all-Latin infield,
I’m not sure Garko is easier to trade than JP. And Vic has to play 1B some of the time. I think all that is in play and waiting. JP could be traded. Vic could be traded. Marte too.
I’m okay with this.
Mostly, I’m okay with not reserving LF for Brantley and Weglarz — much as I love Brantley and Weglarz — because a lot of weird things happen in this game. Will we end up with four or five really great outfielders? Let’s worry about that when it actually happens.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I knew eventually the Jays would clash. For those of us who were here to witness it, it was an epic struggle. It’s our generation’s Hamilton-Burr.
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
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
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.
