Email
PrintComments
Hey, if we can net something good back, why not?
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 2, 2009 11:36 AM EST reply actions
because we'll end up giving him away for nothing
and he’ll have a monster season as soon as he leaves.
by KeithsMoustache on Dec 2, 2009 11:58 AM EST up reply actions
That's why I specifically said "something good back".
Whether or not Omar can actually do that, that’s where it gets a little gray. A lot gray.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 2, 2009 12:09 PM EST up reply actions
Well because we have a need for cheap quality outfielders
So it’s not exactly like we’d be trading from a strength to fill a weakness. Unless they’re planning on going after one of the big name corner of Pagan may be our second best outfielder next season.
Maybe we can get Brian Bannister back
More likely another back-up catcher. Cause we don’t have enough on the roster already.
by Jeffrey Paternostro on Dec 2, 2009 12:13 PM EST reply actions
Works for me.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 2, 2009 11:59 PM EST up reply actions
Proof there is a God
The Royals have inquired about Pagan, 28, but one source insisted that the Mets don’t have interest in Kansas City outfielder Jose Guillen.
Or at least that someone in the mets front office is competent.
Also considering Beltrans knee issues I don’t understand why the obvious solution isn’t to move Beltran to the corner and play pagan in center, especially if they don’t plan on going after a big name corner outfielder. I suppose its because then, God forbid, when F-mart came up Frenchy wouldn’t get to play everyday.
They didn't show the next line from the anonymous source. He said:
But the Mets would be willing to package Pagan with Reyes, as well as one of their mid level prospects, should the Royals look move Yuniesky Betancourt.
"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."
Ben Baumer is the competent person in the FO
"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"
no thanks
the reason other teams want him are the same reasons we should keep him. the guy is young, cheap, super athletic (a definite “5 tool player”) and in his first season w/ consistent playing time realized a great deal of his potential. he hits for average and decent power, can take a walk, runs well and fields well. his only major flaw is minor stuff like baserunning issues, etc which should improve w/ time. that and health which seemed to improve last season.
i think its more than reasonable to project a followup season where he bats above .280 w/ an OBP above .350 and a SLG approaching .500, hits 12-15hrs, steals 30 or so bases, plays excellent D and costs almost nothing. think franklin gutierrez. now this is in a full season of ab’s which he (unfortunately) may not get. and of course his value lessens if he’s not playing center, much in the same way that gutierrez wasn’t great in CLE then broke out this season as a full time CF in SEA.
so basically
he’s Shane Victorino minus being a gigantic douche?
"[The Giants] beat us down. We were beat by a grown-man team, a team we want to be like one day. They came in here and took it to us. Out-manned us, out-gunned us. ... It wasn't even close." - Raheem Morris, 9/27/09
you're right
if it didn’t come through, i’m a definite believer in pagan. always have been, even back to his cyclone days.
by Rob Castellano on Dec 2, 2009 8:41 PM EST up reply actions
the reason we should deal him
is b/c he is a classic sell-high player. He had an unsustainable babip in 09 and never displayed that much bat in his entire career (majors and minors) as he did in 09. That’s not to say he cannot hit in the 770 – 800 range in a good year… perhaps he can. I just think we saw Pagan at his offensive best in 09… none of which is to mention that his general poor baseball instincts leave me thinking Jay Payton all over again.
If another team values him highly now the Mets should take full advantage of that. There’s a very low risk that he becomes the next Amos Otis in KC…
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Dec 2, 2009 4:46 PM EST reply actions
The thing is I can't imagine any team values him enough
to give us something more valuable than even his most likely projection next year, even if his offense isn’t likely going to be as strong with Beltran knee problems we still need a cheap center fielder and there aren’t really many other, or better options, unless they bring in Cameron.
not so, Gina
Some of the lower revenue clubs have already expressed interest according to recent reports and it makes sense. and Cameron is certainly not coming here to be a backup. I’d prefer to sign Randy Winn who would be a perfect 4th OFer at this stage and get whatever they can for Pagan.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Dec 2, 2009 6:23 PM EST up reply actions
Ugh my computer temporarily spazzed
I was trying to say I doubt they’re going to give up significant prospects for him, and the only small revenue club who has reportedly actually made an offer was KC trying to unload Guillen. I’m not saying they won’t give up something for him, I’m saying they likely won’t give up something more valuable than a cheap league average center fielder, which is what Pagan could be for us. Especially with their being some uncertainty as to whether Beltran can/should stay in center fielder permanently and with 0 in house center field options. Winn is a solid 4th outfielder but I don’t think his defense is as strong or strong enough to be a centerfielder, plus he’d also only be a short term fix just leaving us having to fill the hole again next and likely would be more expensive than Pagan anyway, plus the fact he’s clearly on the side of his career where he’s sloping down. I don’t expect Pagan to be anywhere near as good as he was last year, but he could probably be half as good as last year and still be a league average center fielder.
the CFer of the future is
now Kirk Niewenhuis… coming off a big year at A/AA. and Beltran is here for 2 more years anyway.
If I’m Omar, I’d be trying to get Meche for Pagan package.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Dec 2, 2009 6:36 PM EST up reply actions
Beltran also is in his mid 30s with a history of leg problems
He may need to be moved to a corner or he may get injured. And as far as I know there’s no reason to think Niewenhuis will stay in CF, his defense there isn’t very good.
But Adam Rubin said he was the best defensive outfielder in the system!
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 2, 2009 9:32 PM EST up reply actions
Nieuwenhuis will probably wind up in a corner
He’s a good athlete with good speed, but he had horrible TZ numbers this year and he’s a big guy who could lose some mobility as he fills out. I could see him winding up similar to Fernando defensively, a plus in a corner but a minus in center.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 2, 2009 9:32 PM EST up reply actions
"none of which is to mention that his general poor baseball instincts leave me thinking Jay Payton all over again."
General poor baseball instincts? wtf?
ain't had enough...
I guess you haven't seen the Angel Pagan baserunning follies...
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Dec 2, 2009 6:24 PM EST up reply actions
I've seen them
But the AA “scouts” declaring Pagan’s baserunning issues to be enough of a reason to think differently about him is absurd. This isn’t Bengie Molina; any issue he seemed to have had running the bases can be made up for by his speed.
Drawing a conclusion like Pagan having “general poor baseball instincts” from a couple of possibly isolated baserunning mistakes on a Razor Shines-led baserunning team is too much for me…
ain't had enough...
He was still a plus baserunner last season
"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."
his lack of instincts are pretty well accepted by a lot of fans I speak to, fwiw.
not to say that he can’t grow as a player. But again, I think we’ve seen the best of him. I know it’s not easy for some people to get the concept of selling high on a player… I’ve seen a lot of baseball and this looks like a good example of it.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Dec 2, 2009 6:34 PM EST reply actions
It's not selling high
if the package you get back is worth less to you than the player is. Even if Pagan isn’t nearly as good as he was last year he’s still a cheap league average center fielder, which is something we need.
why do we need a CFer?
if we’re counting on the full return of Beltran and Pagan evidently is one the very few players on the team that has value in this market.
and of course it goes without saying that it’s not worth doing unless you get back players of value to the team.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Dec 3, 2009 6:34 AM EST up reply actions
point is
that if other teams out there will use Pagan as their starting CFer like MIL, KC, SD or CIN and for us he just provides depth then it’s certainly worth it to explore trades… that’s the idea that other teams may value him higher than we presently do. It’s easy enough to find 4th and 5th OFers… less so starting CFers. You have to assume Beltran will be 90 – 100% this year… there are just too many holes on this team to ignore a guy who has trade value.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Dec 3, 2009 9:14 AM EST up reply actions
But you're just opening up another hole
since more than likely Pagan will at least be better than whoever our third outfielder is. And no one said not to explore trades, just that the likelihood of getting a player more valuable than Pagan is to us is unlikely, like has been mentioned before all KC offered was getting rid of crappy Guillen and they probably have the most need out of any of those teams. for a team that has as many depth problems as us it doesn’t make sense to trade the little useful depth we actually have.
clearly I think
you can drop the Guillen example as I really don’t think he’s under consideration. But the Royals and other teams have other players that could help the 2010 Mets… you know there are many holes to fill here. How many other players do the Mets have that have any market value? You have to give something to get something and I’d rather give Pagan who doesn’t have a high ceiling as a player than one of the team’s top prospects now.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Dec 3, 2009 9:50 AM EST up reply actions
My point would be that
the Guillen offer is the only actual offer that’s even been reported to be on the table. The rest are just other teams having “possible” “interest”, the article just lists teams who may be looking for centerfielders, and may or may not have interest in Pagan. My point is it doesn’t seem like there’s any real reason they’d be selling high on them.
do you think that
every proposal being discussed or considered is open for media speculation? Just b/c Guillen was the only thing reported does not mean it’s the only thing being discussed or considered for Pagan.
This is not a trade Pagan just for the sake of trading him issue. This is a trade him if you can get back good value for him issue.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Dec 3, 2009 11:37 AM EST up reply actions
But come May we're going to need a competent player in right field
when Francoeur is batting .215/.235/.295
"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."
Yeah and this is my major issue
At best I don’t see how he’s not our third best outfielder going into the season, and that’s if they sign someone like Holliday or maybe pull off a trade for someone like Granderson or Crawford, and, after F-mart, no cheap outfielders coming up in the system anytime soon. And, no offense to Pagan, when there’s a good chance a guy like him we’ll be your second or third best outfielder I wouldn’t say you’re exactly trading from a position of strength. Maybe if we could move him for a Crawford or Granderson it might make sense, though with Granderson making so much more money I’m not sure how much better off we’d be, and it would depend on how many more prospects we’d have to add to a Crawford deal to me, but otherwise I think we’d have to be pretty selective in what we got back and/or how much more we gave up along with him.
definitely walking a tightrope in the outfield right now
we have Frenchy, Pagan, and Beltran, and pretty much nobody else of major league caliber at the moment. We can’t afford to give up pagan without an assured replacement OF and we need more depth at the position since F! likely needs more time to ripen in the minors. I can see them moving Pagan without thinking because his value is high and then panicking when they realise they don’t have anyone to replace him, and thats where we start making these crazy unreasonable offers that hurt us year after year.
by KeithsMoustache on Dec 3, 2009 5:44 PM EST up reply actions
if Pagan is the team's 2nd best OFer
next season then I wouldn’t count on playing any meaningful games in September…
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Dec 4, 2009 9:56 AM EST up reply actions
Think Carl Crawford
Forget the Royals, package him with some relievers for Carl Crawford – Crawford’s glove in the outfield at Citi plus speed in the lineup would be awesome.
not even close
to enough to net crawford
by Rob Castellano on Dec 2, 2009 9:29 PM EST up reply actions
In theory its not a terrible idea
But its too much of a marketing folly for TB. They’d have to be really ballsy to try to pull that off. Its a decent economic value for them if they buy into Pagan’s 2009, one year of Crawford for four of Pagan. But unless they’re really confident could turn around after dealing Crawford and make a really strong run against the Yankees and Sox, it would not sit well with the fanbase. Plus, knowing the people involved in negotiations, Omar would probably give up Pagan and a Top 5 prospect for Crawford, which would be way too much.
But if Pagan’s a 2 WAR player whose going to have an average cost of even as much as $2.5 million over the next four seasons, then his surplus value over that time is about $25 million ([$8.8 million for 2 WAR – $2.5 million avg cost] x 4 seasons). If Crawford is a 4.5 WAR player for $10 million in 2010, that’s only about $10 million surplus value. The value for the Mets in this deal, aside from the increasing marginal value of WAR for an individual player, is that Crawford’s skillset may very well get undervalued by the market, so if you can get him on something like a 4 year $68 million deal, you’re still getting some surplus value afterwards, about $3 million per year, enough to offset the difference in surplus value between the two players.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 2, 2009 9:49 PM EST up reply actions
It's a terrible trade for the Rays
Pagan is already the same age as Crawford, has little upside, and not as good as Upton or Jennings right now. So basically they’d be swapping outfielders and get so relievers back, it’s an awful trade.
"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."
It's not an awful trade if they're saving a lot of cash
They’re incredibly strapped for money. But from a PR standpoint its a nightmare.
They are going to trade Crawford for something
He’s a free agent after this year, and no way the Rays can afford to re-sign him. They are shopping for the best package they can get, and if we can convince them Pagan is an integral part of such a package (selling high) I’d do it in a heartbeat. Clearly straight up one for one wouldn’t fly, the question would be what else it would take from our side. But in Citifield, I’d take Crawford over Holliday in left field any day, and wouldn’t you love to see Crawford and Reyes leading off and driving the opposing pitchers and catchers nuts on the bases? And if you’re a pitcher and you walk out to the mound and look behind you and see Reyes, Polanco, Beltran and Crawford, aren’t you going to smile a lot?
there's really no indication that they are
going to trade Crawford. The Rays won’t trade him if they intend to make a run this year and there’s no reason for them not to try. Their trade of Kazmir was made for the purpose of clearing the payroll room to allow them to keep CC.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Dec 3, 2009 9:10 AM EST up reply actions
Well
They get an outfielder who is under team control for then next four seasons and likely to be paid significantly less than what he’s worth. That’s not to say I don’t think the Rays could do better, especially if they focused more on the long term and went for prospects, but it wouldn’t be an un-savvy move for them, it just wouldn’t speak well to their fans.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 3, 2009 6:38 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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.
