Pagan traded for Coco Crisp?!?

[Guest MadDog]

AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT STEVE J ROGERS IS LISTENING TO ESPN RADIO! THAT'S A BAD JOB RIGHT THERE. NO TWO WAYS ABOUT IT, THAT'S A BAD JOB.

[Frayed Knot]

]Sadly they weren't the only ones, down the dial on 1050 Don LaGreca needed some time to kill so he ran with it for a couple of segments

So what?
Once it's been brought out into the open they're going to discuss it for the same reasons we were.
As long as they are reporting it as speculation (and not pretending that it's their scoop which IS something ESPN tends to do) they'd almost be wrong NOT to talk about it.

[stevejrogers]

Frayed Knot wrote: ]Sadly they weren't the only ones, down the dial on 1050 Don LaGreca needed some time to kill so he ran with it for a couple of segments So what? Once it's been brought out into the open they're going to discuss it for the same reasons we were. As long as they are reporting it as speculation (and not pretending that it's their scoop which IS something ESPN tends to do) they'd almost be wrong NOT to talk about it.

Yeah, but there is a difference between a broad topic sports show and a Met focused message board. FWIW he brought it up around 5:40 or so, the rumor was shot down hours before and the local reporters were all telling the update guy that there was nothing to the speculation.

Also a sports show is a controlled environment. This board isn't really in terms of that. I could throw up a thread saying I heard the Mets were going to trade Pelfrey to Atlanta to get Glavine back. Some back and forth goes on between posters, then confirmation that I got real bad information arrives an half hour later, and that ends the posting. Even if it means that posts continue to trickle in the thread, for all intent and purposes, once confirmation that there is no validity to the deal, topic over.

A talk show host can control what goes on during the show. Something broke a few hours earlier and had since turned out to be not true, is still a topic of discussion for no real reason other than to kill some time.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

MadDog wrote: AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT STEVE J ROGERS IS LISTENING TO ESPN RADIO! THAT'S A BAD JOB RIGHT THERE. NO TWO WAYS ABOUT IT, THAT'S A BAD JOB.

rofl

[metsmarathon]

SteveJRogers wrote: ="Frayed Knot"] ]Sadly they weren't the only ones, down the dial on 1050 Don LaGreca needed some time to kill so he ran with it for a couple of segments So what? Once it's been brought out into the open they're going to discuss it for the same reasons we were. As long as they are reporting it as speculation (and not pretending that it's their scoop which IS something ESPN tends to do) they'd almost be wrong NOT to talk about it. Yeah, but there is a difference between a broad topic sports show and a Met focused message board. FWIW he brought it up around 5:40 or so, the rumor was shot down hours before and the local reporters were all telling the update guy that there was nothing to the speculation. Also a sports show is a controlled environment. This board isn't really in terms of that. I could throw up a thread saying I heard the Mets were going to trade Pelfrey to Atlanta to get Glavine back. Some back and forth goes on between posters, then confirmation that I got real bad information arrives an half hour later, and that ends the posting. Even if it means that posts continue to trickle in the thread, for all intent and purposes, once confirmation that there is no validity to the deal, topic over. A talk show host can control what goes on during the show. Something broke a few hours earlier and had since turned out to be not true, is still a topic of discussion for no real reason other than to kill some time.

from a metly standpoint, what else is there to talk about on a day like today, really, without just rehashing the same hash that's been hashed about for the past few weeks already?

[stevejrogers]

Fair point, but who says you need anything Metly to be discussed? You could go on nonsensical rants on topics based on "talking points" you don't really believe yourself just to try and get yourself to believe said talking point.

That might make for entertaining radio...

Or not...

The point is there is more stuff that can be discussed rather than debate the merits of a trade that was shot down hours before.

[Elster88]

avi

[metsmarathon]

SteveJRogers wrote: Fair point, but who says you need anything Metly to be discussed? You could go on nonsensical rants on topics based on "talking points" you don't really believe yourself just to try and get yourself to believe said talking point..

is that actually better than discussing the merits of a trade which, while currently denied, can still make for an interesting conversation, as it brings out a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the team, and opens the door for speculation into, okay, so this trade doesn't seem like it could happen - what trade or signing can the mets make to improve the outfield depth, if they need to at all? what would it really take to get crisp, if pagan is not enough? and what could the mets really get for pagan if the mets decided to trade him now, while his value might be at its peak?

would that really be as much a waste of time as somebody trying to convince us and himself that steroids are really a healthy thing that all ballplayers should be encouraged to try?

i'd much rather them discuss the news of the day and follow the tangential paths down which it may lead them, than for them to just dust off some old 'controversial' talking point.

[Guest AG/DC]

I'ts not the news of the day, though. It's something somebody threw up in the air.

[Frayed Knot]

AG/DC wrote: I'ts not the news of the day, though. It's something somebody threw up in the air.

I wonder if there were other sources that 'went public' with this or if much of the talk (ESPN radio, website discussions, etc.) all stemmed from piggybacking off of Eddie C. calling it in as rumor to M&MD?

[Vic Sage]

I'm happy to see Angel Pagan having a hot Spring, but lets look at some facts:

Angel Pagan: (27 in July) had a career OPS in minors of .710, in over 2700 plate appearances during 8 seasons (from age 18-25). In 348 PA in the majors over the last 2 seasons, he's put up a comparable OPS of .721

There is nothing in this career that says to me: "whoa, this is our LFer of the future. Lets hold on to him!"

Now lets look at Coco Crisp: Despite 6 years of major league experience, he is still only 28; in the minors, he put up a .783 OPS over 1800+ PAs during 6 seasons (age 19-26). In the majors, he's put up a .738 OPS over 2800+ PAs (6 seasons), but in his peak performances measured by 2 seasons with the Indians, he produced an .800 OPS as a fleet, gold-glove caliber CFer with some pop.

Not only are Crisp's averages better than Pagan (in the minors and the majors), his potential peak is higher and their ages are close. The one reservation is a recent history of injuries. And, of course, there is his price tag.

But with Alou out (and likely to be out again, periodically, throughout the season) and with Beltran's balky knees, I'd be much happier to see Crisp on our bench than hope Pagan's ST rampage will carry over to the regular season.

Crisp is just a better player. He was in the minors. He was in the majors. He is today and is likely to continue to be better for the forseeable future. Is he $10m/yr better? Separate question, but that shouldn't be an issue for this franchise.

[Guest AG/DC]

Of course it should be.

[Guest AG/DC]

Either the Mets have maxed out their budget or they haven't and they can do something better with $10 million.

[nymr83]

The idea that the Mets have maxxed out their budget is pretty hard for me to swallow (and I'm not accusing you of making this point, its just a predicate to my argument.) Its like they are the D-Rays and can honestly say (and i don't want to argue the point over whether the Rays can say this its just an example) that adding money now means going into the red for the year.
I don't think the Mets are going to say to Minaya "X is your budget, we're sorry you just can't have Adam Dunn." They're going to analyze the cost of a given move and decide if they think the likely effect of that move on the win total and income (some acquisitions, like a star player, fill the seats or sell jerseys even if they are not necessary) is worth their money.
My guess is that they'd decide $10 million isn't worth it for Crisp, unless they think that between Alou's time on the DL and whatever injury Beltran will suffer they can get Crisp 500 ABs, I doubt they want to pay 10 million for a bench player, and thats not because they can't afford to add 10 mil to the payroll.

[smg58]

Vic Sage wrote: Not only are Crisp's averages better than Pagan (in the minors and the majors), his potential peak is higher and their ages are close. The one reservation is a recent history of injuries. And, of course, there is his price tag.

The .738 vs. .721 major league OPS isn't that big a difference. Plus, Crisp's ML numbers are weighted by a couple of years in Cleveland that are now squarely in the rear view mirror. I suppose those years in Cleveland raise Crisp's potential peak, but is he really any more likely to move forward from last year than the younger and healthier Pagan? And even without factoring in Pagan's spring, would you bet $10M on it? I wouldn't.

[Guest AG/DC]

1) Crisp had been hurt in the groin and not playing for eight days at the time of this. (I don't know if he played today.)

2) Whispers are that he's jaking it because he's unhappy about a better guy taking his position.

3) He was having a Come-to-HeyZeus meeting with the team yesterday.

4) Unhappy with the Sox, he'll likely be unhappy with the Mets.

5) I don't know why his peak is necessarily higher.

6) It's absurd that there's no meaningful difference between a .710 OPS and a .721 OPS, but the difference between .721 and .738 is worth $10 million, despite the factors above.

[Vic Sage]

its not the difference between .710 and .721

its the difference between Pagan's career .721 ops in the minors and Crisp's, .780-something, a substantial difference established over many years and many PAs. That indicates to me a clear difference in major-league potential, which bore itself out in the majors when Crisp had not 1 but 2 solid .800-ish OPS seasons as the starting CFer for Cleveland. Those seasons were 2 years ago. And, at age 28, to state those seasons are clearly in the "rearview mirror" after 2 injury-plagued seasons in Boston, is the only clearly "absurd" statement made in this thread. He's 28, not 32. And Pagan will be 27 this season. This is not an age for youth thing. This is an experienced, established producer over an inexperienced unestablished producer.

If you want to argue that Crips is a whiny, lazy jaker, with injuries that make him suspect, then fine. make that argument. But, at his best, he's a better player than Pagan was, is or is likely to be. And maybe the $10m/yr isn't worth that difference. But i have zero confidence in Pagan, based on his last 8 years of baseball. And i have HUGE confidence that Alou will play no more than 80-90 games, and that Beltran is likely to miss time this year, too, with his knees, and Church has yet to have a full season as an everyday OFer. So if my ppriority is winning games, rather than holding down the payroll, then giving Crisp 450+ PAs this year as a 4th OFer instead of Pagan or Chavez makes me alot more cahhhnfident in our chances in 2008.

I am not seduced by hot bats in spring training. but your mileage may vary.

[Guest Number 6]

FWIW (and I believe it's something), BP has Pagan as an average defender in both center and the corners, whereas Crisp's performance last season was one of the best defensive seasons for a centerfielder in recent memory.

Not that he'd be any happier as a 4th outfielder with the Mets than he is in Boston, but putting that aside, when you take everything into account he's much more valuable than Pagan. With the Mets' propensity for injuries in their outfield, I'd take him for the money.

[Guest AG/DC]

Vic Sage wrote: And, at age 28, to state those seasons are clearly in the "rearview mirror" after 2 injury-plagued seasons in Boston, is the only clearly "absurd" statement made in this thread.

Who said that?

Vic Sage wrote: He's 28, not 32.

Who said that?

Vic Sage wrote: I am not seduced by hot bats in spring training. but your mileage may vary.

Neither am I.

[Guest AG/DC]

Number 6 wrote: FWIW (and I believe it's something), BP has Pagan as an average defender in both center and the corners, whereas Crisp's performance last season was one of the best defensive seasons for a centerfielder in recent memory. .

It's sure worth something.

Number 6 wrote: Not that he'd be any happier as a 4th outfielder with the Mets than he is in Boston, but putting that aside, when you take everything into account he's much more valuable than Pagan. With the Mets' propensity for injuries in their outfield, I'd take him for the money.

Taking into account that he's both hurt and unhappy as a reserve, I think he's clearly not wrth $10 million more.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Angel or Coco? Coco or Angel?

Sounds like a choice that Eliot Spitzer may have been asked to make.

[smg58]

The Fielding Bible gave Crisp a +22 in 1216 innings. By contrast, Beltran had a +25 in 1240 innings. (Basically, a player gets a +1 every time he makes a play that another player at his position failed to make, and a -1 every time he fails to make a play that somebody else did make. I think they base these on hang time for the ball and distance the fielder had to travel.) Crisp had a zone rating of .911 to Beltran's .908. These numbers certainly suggest that Crisp is a very good fielder, but suggesting his year might be historically good when he was not any better than the guy we've already got in center is an exaggeration. (Plus Endy had a zone rating in center of .960, in an admittedly small sample.) Angel Pagan's zone rating was .862 for center, in a small sample. I'm not sure how that translates to the league average, but an average CF would have a +/- of 0 -- meaning, roughly, he'd have made 11 of the 22 plus plays Crisp made and missed the other 11. So if Pagan is average (and not knowing his +/- or minor league fielding stats, I'm trusting the BP assessment), Crisp would save 11 hits over him if you needed to choose one as a full-time CF. We're talking about a fill-in in left field, though, and otherwise a general reserve whose time in center would most likely be limited.

[Guest AG/DC]

By the way, where is that $10 miillion figure we're (specifically I'm) throwing around coming from?

Cot's Baseball Contracts has him due a reasonable $4.75 million in 2008 and $10.5 million over two years. Certainly far more do-able.

Covelli Crisp of

3 years/$15.5M (2007-09), plus $8M 2010 club option

signed extension 4/06

$1M signing bonus

07:$3.5M, 08:$4.75M, 09:$5.75M, 10:$8M club option ($0.5M buyout)

1 year/$2.75M (2006)

re-signed 2/06, avoided arbitration ($3.05M-$2.35M)

1 year/$0.3649M (2005), re-signed 3/05

1 year/$0.3194M (2004), re-signed 3/04

agent: Steve Comte

ML service: 4.158

[Guest Number 6]

AG/DC wrote: Taking into account that he's both hurt and unhappy as a reserve, I think he's clearly not wrth $10 million more.

I'm with you. I was more in the imaginary world of "would it be worth it to acquire Crisp for Pagan, from a purely performance/dollars standpoint." I see Crisp as far more valuable than Pagan, but yeah, it's not worth much if he's not going to accept his role. The injury doesn't bother me.

="smg58"] suggesting his year might be historically good when he was not any better than the guy we've already got in center is an exaggeration.

BP has Crisp at +29 for last year, Beltran at +11. I like the Fielding Bible too, but defensive metrics vary quite a bit. I have no reason to exaggerate; if you take +29 seriously, it's a very rare level of ability.

AG/DC wrote: Cot's Baseball Contracts has him due a reasonable $4.75 million in 2008 and $10.5 million over two years. Certainly far more do-able.

This is what I was working off of. $10MM per would be a different story.

[Guest AG/DC]

I think I got the $10m from Vic.

[Willets Point]

AG/DC wrote: I think I got the $10m from Vic.

Vic's a generous dude.

[smg58]

The other defensive metrics suggest there's very little difference between Beltran and Crisp. It would be interesting to know what BP does differently.

Look, if centerfield defense was a need for the Mets, I'd feel very differently about acquiring Crisp. But the Mets have Beltran, and in Chavez they already have an excellent defensive outfielder with a so-so bat and a history of injuries on the bench. If the Mets have a need to fill, it's for some pop with the bat.

[Guest Number 6]

I suppose we're arguing something different. I really shouldn't have gone down the road of discussing Beltran's defense. Obviously, we're not looking to replace Beltran.

The argument I would make is that Crisp would be a significant upgrade over Chavez or Pagan. It's likely that one or both of them will be getting a significant number of PA's given the health of the Mets outfield; it's even a possibility that we could be talking 400+ PA in what would be a worst case (but unsurprising) scenario. Crisp is a borderline regular; given his defense, he would start on a fair number of ML teams. I'd rather him get those PA's than 4th/5th outfielders Chavez and Pagan, especially since the cost in dollars wouldn't be prohibitive.

Point's moot anyway, of course, as the rumor was unsubstantiated.

[smg58]

Of course it's a moot point, but the spring training games evidently aren't giving us enough things to discuss.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Angel or Coco? Coco or Angel? Sounds like a choice that Eliot Spitzer may have been asked to make.

Bad ass!