Newsflash: Zombie Marte Sighted by Fangraphs
Nothing much new here, really, although the article does offer faint praise of Marte's performance at Columbus -- making contact, not striking out too much. With Wes Hodges due to return soon, what happens to Marte?
over 2 years ago
peter m
77 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
The Dodgers!
"Some days are better than others, but it's a long season."
— The Inestimable Eric Wedge
by emd2k3 on Jul 2, 2009 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions 6 recs
Or the Cardinals.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 2, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I want to save francisco’s to use it next year. use the break as clean time to Fire Wedge, promote LaPorta and option Valbuena for two weeks. i also say what’s it hurt to bring up marte at that time…
What’s our current 40 man count? We will have to have spots for Lewis or Westbrook once they are ready to return as well. Bringing up Marte would create the need for a third 40 man spot.
I do think they are saving Ben’s last option for next year. They’re funny that way.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 2, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions
We’re not going to pay arbitration dollars and then option him. Garko’s time should be up.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 2, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Who plays first if Garko’s dealt or non-tendered? LaPorta from Day 1? Martinez full-time? Agent M? Jordan Brown?? I don’t think they’d acquire someone if they think Brantley will be up at some point.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 2, 2009 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions
You could put LaPorta there every day.
Or, if LaPorta has the ability to play nice D in the outfield, then you can sign a lefty-hitting 1b to platoon with Shoppach. That could be Brown, but don’t you think that a short term left-batting 1b with a plus bat is exactly the kind of guy you could find off the scrap heap?
Failing a genuinely good option, Jordan Brown isn’t a bad one.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 2, 2009 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions
If they believe in Marte (I know, fat chance), you could always move Jhonny over to 1B. I’m sure he’d be thrilled.
Or it just would mean Jhonny gets dealt.
There’s no way they take Marte over a guy who has already hit 20 HR three times.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 3, 2009 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Most interesting points for me in the article:
Marte is making solid contact, striking out in 16.7% of his plate appearances.
A solid contact guy is clearly what we need.
…especially taking into account that Marte is regarded as being one of the better defenders in the minors, so much so, he was voted by minor league managers and coaches as the International League’s best defensive third baseman three years in a row (’05-’07). His Total Zone numbers match the scouting reports; in those 301 games, Marte has been worth +31 runs.
If we are serious about improving our focus on defense, then Marte definitely deserves another chance.
This is as strong an argument as there is. I’m still afraid of the K/BB numbers, but Jhonny’s making his case for him currently.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 2, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
/rolls eyes as world catches up to arguments made two years ago …
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 2, 2009 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Oh, quit acting like you’re Copernicus or something.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 2, 2009 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, but now his batting average is higher.
by fleerdon on Jul 2, 2009 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
of course
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 2, 2009 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions
/rolls eyes at the idea that anyone still cares about Andy Marte
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
The fact I stopped caring doesn’t mean the arguments weren’t made two years ago.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 6, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
You know, if we’re not going to give prospects like Marte and Brown a chance I don’t know why we keep them. If you think they’ll never make it then send them off like you did with Aubrey.
We keep them because we can, until it becomes a problem for us.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 2, 2009 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t quite understand how the Indians work (or don’t), but it seems to me that at least Marte has done some sort of work to improve his hitting. They should either be prepared to take one last look at him, or send him on his way. I would think some other organization might take a flyer on him, even if they only get cash considerations. They should do the same with Jordan Brown.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
This response goes to Trump above also:
Why? There’s no rush. Even if these guys aren’t premium prospects, we have them for depth, and we watch to see how they significantly improve in an area (unlikely), and we wait to see if any team makes a significant offer for them.
Every organization has tons of these guys. You can’t have a premium prospect in every spot, and I’m sure we won’t let these guys block a future star.
We may take a look at one eventually, but again, there’s no rush. The information we get from AAA is also relevant, if less exact.
This is all from the Tribe’s perspective. Marte and Brown will agree with you two.
Like I told Jay, whether we can keep Brown/Marte in the minors is irrelevant. My point is that we shouldn’t , at least for much longer. Regardless of what you think of them Marte and Brown have been hitting well in AAA at young enough of an age that they still have a chance to be quality major league baseball players.
Especially Brown who has consistently been a good hitter throughout the minors. In fact, Brown has maintained or improved almost every year in the Indians system, minus 2008 where he played with a nagging injury. I would hate to lose a player in the rule 5 draft who’s MLE is .293/.324/.458.
Brown might not be a favorite on LGT but Baseball America listed him as the #7 prospect in the Indians system in 2008. They also listed him as the player with the best strike zone judgment. Of course BA isn;t the end all be all of prospect analysis, but they’re certainly a very credible source..
by world dictator on Jul 2, 2009 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions
NONSENSE.
We should keep them in the minors as long as we choose and the rules allow.
Neither has put up overwhelming numbers to suggest that Triple-A is beneath them.
A shot in the majors is nobody’s birthright. If you can’t force your way in, you have no right to complain.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 2, 2009 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I DISAGREE
I never stated Brown was entitled to a trip to the majors. Really, no player is entitled to play in the majors, ask Liriano. I’m also not disputing the front office’s ability to hold him in the minors. But I think his numbers this year show enough promise that we should call him up, especially considering that we have to add him to the 40 man roster or lose him this offseason. With the Indians season done, its the perfect time to call him up. and see what he can do.
You might not agree with my assessment of his numbers, but simply arguing that the Indians are within their rights to place Brown where they see fit is non responsive to my point.
by world dictator on Jul 2, 2009 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Of course I can see how this plays out already. He storms onto the scene like Garko and Francisco in a half season, and then we are stuck with mediocrity for 2 or more years.
Or or or he storms onto the scene like Garko and Fransisco in a half season and we sell high like we should have with Garko and Fransisco.
MARK SHAPIRO SHALL HAVE HIS REVENGE!
by world dictator on Jul 2, 2009 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, really?
his numbers this year show enough promise that we should call him up
He’s got an 889 OPS — hardly impressive for a 1B/LF — and his MLE is 787. His walk rate is terrible, his power is middling.
And the words “show promise” do not apply to the stats of a 25-year-old.
This is what I meant by “birthright.” You act as if all a guy has to do is make it to Triple-A and play pretty well, and hey, we really should give him a shot. This is absolutely and completely a load of crap. Guys who are 25 in the minors do not have much if any projection left in them, and guys who play well in Triple-A probably would not play well in the majors.
Look at Kevin Kouzmanoff as one example. 1074 OPS in Double-A, 1056 in a handful of games in Triple-A. In the majors? 736 OPS. Granted, he’s in a terrible park for hitters, but he’s still not an 800 OPS guy even in an average park.
Non-skill players who can’t crack a 900 OPS have not earned a shot in the majors. They may get one anyway, but they most definitely are not entitled to one.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 2, 2009 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m sorry but this is BS Jay
If you’re going to argue Brown’s numbers aren’t good enough for a call up then just do it. You don’t need to create arguments that we’re never said. I think I’ve been very clear that I don’t think Brown is entitled to anything. My point was that, in my opinion, his numbers are good enough that we should see what he can do.
Guys who are 25 in the minors do not have much if any projection left in them, and guys who play well in Triple-A probably would not play well in the majors.
Its funny that you say this Jay since I can think of three former Indians prospects alone that were in the minors at ages 24-26. Hafner, Garko, and Kouzmanoff.
Yeah, yeah, yeah Garko and Kouzmanoff suck, whatever. Garko has a career OPS of .799 with a real shot of OPS’ing over .800 this year. Kouzmanoff has an .818 OPS away from Petco. Both are regular major league players.
by world dictator on Jul 2, 2009 9:17 PM EDT up reply actions
If you’re going to argue Brown’s numbers aren’t good enough for a call up then just do it.
I believe I just did.
I think I’ve been very clear that I don’t think Brown is entitled to anything.
Okay, fair enough.
My point was that, in my opinion, his numbers are good enough that we should see what he can do.
And my point remains that his performance does not by itself warrant a callup. That is, that it is a sensible option to just keep him lying around spare, if we have better uses for the roster spot. There is no particular imperative to seeing what he can do — absolutely none. Calling him up is a reasonable option — you may have noticed that elsewhere I have advocated for him to replace Garko next season — but not calling him up is also perfectly reasonable. In fact, declining to add him to the 40-man roster prior to the Rule 5 draft would not be unthinkable, either. He’s shown us something, but really not all that much.
Its funny that you say this Jay since I can think of three former Indians prospects alone that were in the minors at ages 24-26. Hafner, Garko, and Kouzmanoff.
Yes, w.d., I know. And that’s why I said they don’t have much projection left, i.e., we can’t expect them to jump to a higher level of performance. So it’s a good thing that Hafner at age 25, for example, had a 1022 OPS and a walk rate of 16% — more than three times Brown’s walk rate. And Kouzmanoff, at age 24, 1093 OPS. As for Garko, his numbers were about the same as Brown’s, which just furthers my point — Garko is a career mediocrity, at least so far.
Yeah, yeah, yeah Garko and Kouzmanoff suck, whatever. Garko has a career OPS of .799 with a real shot of OPS’ing over .800 this year. Kouzmanoff has an .818 OPS away from Petco. Both are regular major league players.
KK doesn’t suck — there’s a significant difference between a passable 3B and a passable 1B, and only Garko has the debilitating lack of foot-speed. Garko doesn’t exactly “suck” anyway, he’s just solidly below-average — and by the way, he is not a regular major league player. He’s started exactly 60% of our games this season, and I’m not the only one who thinks that’s too many.
Next time, take a few minutes to think about the data before you make your conclusions and start a big argument.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Next time, take a few minutes to think about the data before you make your conclusions and start a big argument.
Like the data I provided that proved he was worth calling up? Yeah, thought so.
Look Jay, we’re basically making the same point. The only difference is that I’m making the case for calling him up and you’re saying you’d be fine if we did and you’d be equally fine if we didn’t. Okay, that still a parallel argument. I’ve never said it’s imperative and as you concede above, I’m not claiming Brown is entitled to a call up.
He’s started exactly 60% of our games this season, and I’m not the only one who thinks that’s too many.
Sucks to be you. Fire Wedge :-)
by world dictator on Jul 3, 2009 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions
This season has devolved into an argument over Jordan Brown.
I become an expert simply by doing something.
Like the data I provided that proved he was worth calling up? Yeah, thought so.
Yes. Not “like” that data, that data. That data argues against your case, not for it, you simply have failed to put it in the proper context.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 3, 2009 8:55 AM EDT up reply actions
Jay’s response is right, but I have to point out that you’ve done some overly fine parsing of language up there. When you kept saying that the Indians “should” bring them up, and that we weren’t giving them a chance, I also kept reading it as you saying that they had earned it, or forced their way up. If you were just using “should” in a weaker way, saying “might as well do it now,” I apologize. But the first reading makes sense in the context, because you seemed upset about their status.
The response has been “What’s the rush? Let’s keep them until its convenient to bring them up, or they actually do dominate AAA, or until the rules force a decision.” I don’t read anyone writing that we keep them down BECAUSE we can. I don’t even know what that means.
Jay’s response is right, but I have to point out that you’ve done some overly fine parsing of language up there. When you kept saying that the Indians "should" bring them up, and that we weren’t giving them a chance, I also kept reading it as you saying that they had earned it, or forced their way up. If you were just using "should" in a weaker way, saying "might as well do it now," I apologize. But the first reading makes sense in the context, because you seemed upset about their status.
I haven’t parsed any language. You and Jay just locked on to a specific word and assumed It was being used a certain way.
Don’t get me wrong, your interpretation makes sense, but I’d be willing to bet that the majority of people associate the word “should” with advisability before obligation. But hey, language is fluid and open to interpretation. I’ll try to be more clear next time.
At the very least, I can say that having this debate was educational.
by world dictator on Jul 3, 2009 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions
If “should” doesn’t imply an imperative, or at least a priority, I don’t know what it even means here, and your whole original statement evaporates into nothing.
Maybe you really just meant, they should think about calling him up.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 3, 2009 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions
God, it’s even worse. The season has devolved into a textualist argument over Jordan Brown.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 3, 2009 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
“Should” as in a suggestion/my opinion. Like if your friend said “Hey Jay, you should check out George Clooney’s new movie.”
It’s a fairly common way of using “should”
by world dictator on Jul 3, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Last word.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 3, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
They should either be prepared to take one last look at him, or send him on his way.
And they will do one or the other … but not perhaps until the offseason. The system ensures that they have to make that choice.
They should do the same with Jordan Brown.
Brown was made available to every team via the Rule 5 draft. They all passed. We have at least three more years to assign him as we wish.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 2, 2009 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions
So Brown is under team control for three more years? I thought a player continued to be eligble for the rule 5 draft until he was rostered or let go.
by world dictator on Jul 2, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions
If we add him to the 40-man roster, we can keep him in the minors for three more seasons — every day of those seasons, if we want.
Then, after that, he’s still under control in the majors for another six years.
Basically, he’s ours forever if we really want him. And it’s his fault for not being better.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 2, 2009 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah and we can keep LaPorta in the minors for three seasons too if we want. Whether we can do something and whether we should do something are two different things.
by world dictator on Jul 2, 2009 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Only for two more seasons after this one.
LaPorta has only been in pro ball for two years. Brown has been around for a while, but the fact he hasn’t advanced more quickly isn’t the Indians’ fault. Nobody should be berating the Indians for not “deciding” on Brown by now. That’s simply not how this works. You sign with a club, you get your signing bonus, and you kick around the minors until you prove that you don’t belong there anymore.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 2, 2009 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions
I believe this is correct wd. If we do not put Marte or Brown on the 40 this fall, they both will still be available in Rule 5. No guarantee anybody selcts them. But once they achieve 6 years in the minors, they can choose to become a minor league free agent.
Jay, is this correct?
Right, except that Rule 5 precedes minor league free agency, and anyone selected in the Rule 5 draft joins his new team’s 40-man roster. Since he’s on the 40-man roster, he’s considered to be on a major league contract, so minor league free agency doesn’t apply.
In November, players do or don’t get added to 40-man rosters.
In December, a player not on a 40-man roster may get selected in the Rule 5 draft, which puts him on a 40-man roster.
In January, if he’s not selected, then if six or more complete seasons have passed since he was first signed as an amateur, then he becomes a minor league free agent.
If he is drafted under Rule 5, then he’s on a major league contract and isn’t eligible for minor league free agency in January. This is the case regardless of age or service time — it could happen to a guy on a one-year minor league deal from the previous season. That may seem annoying, but in truth, that player is a journeyman who is probably thrilled for a team to have a serious interest in him for their 25-man roster.
If the Rule 5 draftee is later returned, or outrighted from the 40-man without being returned, then he still doesn’t become a free agent unless he’d already been outrighted once before. So if he were drafted under Rule 5 and then returned, Andy Marte could declare himself a free agent, but Jordan Brown could not.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
By the way, the six complete seasons in the minors means that the year you were drafted doesn’t count, because you got drafted mid-season. Brown was drafted in 2005, so he couldn’t opt to be a minor league free agent until after the 2011 season, and even then, only if all 29 other teams passed on him in the December 2011 Rule 5 draft.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I recall hearing someone—Hamilton, perhaps—say that if the Tribe calls up Marte, they’re stuck with him. They can’t return him to Columbus without putting him through waivers again. If that’s true, it would explain why no one is in a hurry to give him a tryout in Cleveland. If he comes up again he’ll have to stay or risk being lost.
Also true. He’s a fine reserve option if nothing else right now. No need to burn that chance needlessly.
…Like in 2007.
by fleerdon on Jul 2, 2009 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions
That is true this season for Cleveland, and for every future season of Marte’s career with any team. As with any player who’s out of options, a team can sign him to a minor league deal, but once he’s called up, he can’t be sent back down without being put on waivers. In addition, if he clears outright waivers, he can now refuse an outright assignment to the minors and become a free agent again.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Wow I didn’t realize Marte had been mashing again over the last week. And killing righties all year too.
3rd in the IL in slugging, 3rd in OPS for what it’s worth.
by supermarioelia on Jul 3, 2009 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
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.
