Master Index of Archived Threads


Undercover Angel

... looks to have an important future on this team.

2 votes

... looks to have a modest future on this team.

18 votes

... won't survive the season.

3 votes

... won't survive the spring.

2 votes

Edgy DC Dec 30 2009 12:03 PM

What is your opinion about this Pagan fellow? Trouble staying healthy, but the sort of line drive hitter that can really exploit the CitiField power alleys. Piles up triples, but has done doltish things on the base paths. Has a lot of skills, but none so impressive as to suggest he can stay in the lineup when he's not at his best. Signing Bay kicks Pagan to the bench once more, fightiing with Carter and F-Bomb and Evans for playing time. He's a good outfielder but no defensive specialist. But Jeromy Reed has sure shown how outfielders on the roster primarily as def-reps can be a load. It's debateable whether he's enough of an improvement over Jason Bay to use him that capacity. They probably wouldn't. (By the way, congratulations to the Mets on this one. Angel may have had a couple of long-term injuries, but the two cats he was traded for --- Corey Coles and Ryan Meyers --- have zero major league at-bats between them and neither played in 2009.) So, what do you do with Angel now? Trade high? Or save him for the inevitable crack in our lineup?

Benjamin Grimm Dec 30 2009 12:08 PM Re: Undercover Angel

I voted "modest." If he sticks around, and I suspect he will, I think we'll be glad to have him as a fourth outfielder.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 30 2009 12:11 PM Re: Undercover Angel

Assuming he is-- and, by and large, will be-- exactly what he is at present, he'll make a great 4th OF, and a satisfactory-at-best anything else. "Modest." (Although I could see him leaving in trade for midseason reinforcements.)

metsguyinmichigan Dec 30 2009 12:14 PM Re: Undercover Angel Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 30 2009 01:07 PM

I like him. But I think he'll be part of a trade with Cincy or Kansas City for a pitcher.

attgig Dec 30 2009 12:36 PM Re: Undercover Angel

keep him around in case Francouer flops again. at worst, we may have a righty/lefty platoon with these two in right (pagan's lefty splits have him better, though he seems to show more power from the right)

smg58 Dec 30 2009 12:36 PM Re: Undercover Angel

Tough to say. Pagan should probably start in right against righthanded pitching; whether he will or not remains an open question. And we will need a defensive sub in left regardless. I'd be open to dealing him if somebody offers a starting outfielder's price for him, but if not, I think he has more than enough value as a fourth outfielder to justify keeping him around.

Edgy DC Dec 30 2009 12:42 PM Re: Undercover Angel

[quote="smg58":1aq57w3u]Tough to say. Pagan should probably start in right against righthanded pitching; whether he will or not remains an open question.[/quote:1aq57w3u] Oh, I'm pretty sure he won't. Not unless/until we see Frenchy killing us non-stop seven or eight weeks into the seaoson. Francoeur may have sucked in his last few films, but he passed his audition for this one.

Swan Swan H Dec 30 2009 12:43 PM Re: Undercover Angel

He's going to Chicago for Zambrano.

Ceetar Dec 30 2009 12:46 PM Re: Undercover Angel

I like Pagan. I think he's an excellent 4th outfield, I think he'll find some playing time, and it really strengthens the bench, something that was perhaps the worst part of the team last year.

Edgy DC Dec 30 2009 12:57 PM Re: Undercover Angel

It's as much that the bench was over-stretched and as injured as the starters. He himself was a prime example. I don't want him (or anybody) traded but after last year's performance, he may be worth more to another team willing to give him more PT than the Mets are.

Ceetar Dec 30 2009 01:00 PM Re: Undercover Angel

Tatis _may_ have been okay as a bench guy, as may have Sheffield, but they were never used like that, even when everyone else was healthy. Reed was always on the bench, never got a chance to start, and Santos may have been a slight downgrade from Castro, but as backup catchers go, whatever.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 30 2009 01:03 PM Re: Undercover Angel

Tatis _may_ have been okay as a bench guy, as may have Sheffield, but they were never used like that, even when everyone else was healthy. Please to explain?

attgig Dec 30 2009 01:07 PM Re: Undercover Angel

[quote="Edgy DC":62q8coyd]he may be worth more to another team willing to give him more PT than the Mets are.[/quote:62q8coyd] who's out there that would take on Pagan as a starter? All I've heard were the royals, but what are we going to get from them that'll really help us? I just don't see a good trading partner that will get us what we need. meanwhile, he's still cheap and probably the best 4th outfield option the mets have.

Edgy DC Dec 30 2009 01:17 PM Re: Undercover Angel

I dunno who will want him. I only said mebbe. what are we going to get from them that'll really help us? Dunno again! (Especially with that "really" in there). Maybe Brian Bannister? Again, I'm for keeping him.

attgig Dec 30 2009 01:18 PM Re: Undercover Angel

[quote="Edgy DC":21jru683]Dunno again! Maybe Brian Bannister?[/quote:21jru683] oddly, the name crossed my head as well as I was typing it, but figured it's best to just let him go.

Edgy DC Dec 30 2009 01:20 PM Re: Undercover Angel

You know, you wouldn't say that about Backpack Girl. You don't let go. You stalk. You make late night phone calls. You friend on Facebook under alias accounts. But you don't. let. go.

bmfc1 Dec 30 2009 01:24 PM Re: Undercover Angel

Excellent song. Big hit in 1977 by Allan O'Day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqi6_DcmfFs Oh, Angel Pagan. I hope that he's used as a throw-in as part of a deal for a SP. He has positives but his cement head outweighs them.

Edgy DC Dec 30 2009 01:27 PM Re: Undercover Angel

Number 212 on the FaFiF 500.

G-Fafif Dec 30 2009 01:31 PM Re: Undercover Angel

[quote="Edgy DC":2sleuv81]Number 212 on the FaFiF 500.[/quote:2sleuv81] The elevation of former Angel Darren O'Day in the spring of 2009 moved "Undercover Angel" by Alan O'Day onto my annual Met playlist. Then Darren disappeared from view. Same thing happened in 2008 when the now forgotten (by me) Raul Casanova gave Levert some unforeseen exposure in my ears.

metsguyinmichigan Dec 30 2009 01:43 PM Re: Undercover Angel

Is Tatis under contract for next year? Is he coming back?

Benjamin Grimm Dec 30 2009 01:45 PM Re: Undercover Angel

[quote="metsguyinmichigan":3rva8jl3]Is Tatis under contract for next year? Is he coming back?[/quote:3rva8jl3] He's currently a free agent. I don't know if the Mets are considering bringing him back. I haven't heard anything either way.

Ceetar Dec 30 2009 02:22 PM Re: Undercover Angel

[quote="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"] Tatis _may_ have been okay as a bench guy, as may have Sheffield, but they were never used like that, even when everyone else was healthy. Please to explain?

Merely that Tatis was somewhat suited to be a pinch hitter off the bench, in certain situations. He wasn't quite a bench guy though, since he started every game against lefties.

Same with Sheffield, who played LF with a "Wait until the ball starts rolling and then pick it up" approach. If he got lucky and hit a pitch hard, he could hit it hard, and he did have a hot week or two, but mostly was a squibb single guy and relied on his former 'presense' to get a lot of walks. Not reliable as a regular, but a good threat off the bench, if that's what he was solely used as, which he wasn't. He played, badly, more often than not.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 30 2009 02:26 PM Re: Undercover Angel

You know, I don't even remember... Coming out of spring training in 2009, who was supposed to be the Mets regular left fielder?

Ceetar Dec 30 2009 02:31 PM Re: Undercover Angel

[quote="Benjamin Grimm":2h05sr7o]You know, I don't even remember... Coming out of spring training in 2009, who was supposed to be the Mets regular left fielder?[/quote:2h05sr7o] Marlon Anderson. I'm not sure Manuel knew who he wanted in LF at that point. (or in RF) says a lot.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 30 2009 02:34 PM Re: Undercover Angel

Maybe it was Daniel Murphy?

attgig Dec 30 2009 02:38 PM Re: Undercover Angel

it was murph. he had that error in the duel between josh johnson and johan santana that cost us the game.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 30 2009 02:38 PM Re: Undercover Angel

[quote="Benjamin Grimm"]Maybe it was Daniel Murphy?

Ding.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 30 2009 02:43 PM Re: Undercover Angel

[quote="Ceetar"]Pagan .... really strengthens the bench, something that was perhaps the worst part of the team last year.

Last year's bench became the everyday starting lineup. That was the problem.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 30 2009 02:44 PM Re: Undercover Angel

[quote="attgig":l4bdzrs2][quote="Edgy DC":l4bdzrs2]he may be worth more to another team willing to give him more PT than the Mets are.[/quote:l4bdzrs2] who's out there that would take on Pagan as a starter? All I've heard were the royals, but what are we going to get from them that'll really help us?[/quote:l4bdzrs2] We could get the big number 5 from their Hall of Fame and use it to replace our big #42 in the you know where.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 30 2009 02:50 PM Re: Undercover Angel Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Dec 30 2009 03:05 PM

[quote="Ceetar":3q6t4avl]Same with Sheffield, who played LF with a "Wait until the ball starts rolling and then pick it up" approach. If he got lucky and hit a pitch hard, he could hit it hard, and he did have a hot week or two, but mostly was a squibb single guy and relied on his former 'presense' to get a lot of walks.[/quote:3q6t4avl] I had no problem with Sheff's ability last year. Durability was another issue, but it was no secret that he was 40 years old; compared to most other 2009 Mets as it turned out, Sheff was relatively healthy. Don't forget that Sheff replaced Marlon Anderson last year and joined the Mets as the last outfielder on the depth chart. Initially, it was not anticipated that Sheff would get over 300 plate appearances, but all plans went to hell and pretty quickly. Offensively, Sheff was one of the best 2009 Mets, rate-wise. As one example, he hit as many HR's as David Wright did, in about half the number of plate appearances. Sheff is still pretty good at hitting major league pitching.

Ceetar Dec 30 2009 03:00 PM Re: Undercover Angel

[quote="batmagadanleadoff":1fs92ql5][quote="Ceetar":1fs92ql5]Same with Sheffield, who played LF with a "Wait until the ball starts rolling and then pick it up" approach. If he got lucky and hit a pitch hard, he could hit it hard, and he did have a hot week or two, but mostly was a squibb single guy and relied on his former 'presense' to get a lot of walks.[/quote:1fs92ql5] I had no problem with Sheff's ability last year. Durability was another issue, but it was no secret that he was 40 years old, and compared to most other 2009 Mets, Sheff was relatively healthy. Offensively, Sheff was one of the best 2009 Mets, rate-wise. He hit as many HR's as David Wright did, in about half the number of plate appearances. Sheff is still pretty good at hitting major league pitching.[/quote:1fs92ql5] The problem is most of his offense seemed to come in spurts. He got some good swings on balls for a week, then went back to squibbing singles, walking, and just plain doing nothing.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 30 2009 03:04 PM Re: Undercover Angel Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 30 2009 03:16 PM

I edited my post at the same time that you were responding. Not that my changes should effect this exchange. Just so you know.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 30 2009 03:08 PM Re: Undercover Angel

[quote="Ceetar":o1v0fz12]The problem is most of his offense seemed to come in spurts. He got some good swings on balls for a week, then went back to squibbing singles, walking, and just plain doing nothing.[/quote:o1v0fz12] If you subtract from the statistical record, every single out Sheffield made last year, he would've batted 1.000. If every 2009 Met hit just like Sheffield did, the Mets might've won the division running away.

Frayed Knot Dec 30 2009 03:24 PM Re: Undercover Angel

[quote="Ceetar":3o3vmgkr]The problem is most of his offense seemed to come in spurts. He got some good swings on balls for a week, then went back to squibbing singles, walking, and just plain doing nothing.[/quote:3o3vmgkr] This just in: Hitters are streaky!

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 30 2009 03:34 PM Re: Undercover Angel

The problem is most of almost every ML hitter ever's offense seems to come in spurts. They get some good swings on balls for a week, then go back to squibbing singles, walking, and just plain doing nothing. (Fixed)

themetfairy Dec 30 2009 03:52 PM Re: Undercover Angel

Modest. I consider that optimistic. But since he threw that ball to D-Dad last summer, I'm giving him benefit of the doubt.

Rockin' Doc Dec 30 2009 05:46 PM Re: Undercover Angel

I see Pagan as the Mets fourth outfielder, pinch hitter off the bench, and late inning defensive sub for Bay. I think he can be very useful in that role.

Ashie62 Dec 30 2009 05:53 PM Re: Undercover Angel

4th outfielder...and first in line upon first OF injury valuable

batmagadanleadoff Dec 30 2009 06:03 PM Re: Undercover Angel

It's too bad that Pagan is primarily a left and centerfielder and that the Mets have seemingly committed to giving Francouer most of the right field at bats. Pagan is a better hitter than Frenchy. If Pagan is a fourth outfielder, then Frenchy is a fourth and a half outfielder.

Frayed Knot Dec 30 2009 06:19 PM Re: Undercover Angel

I'm sure Pagan can play RF if needed. But I also think he needs more than several partial seasons before we can know what he is. In the meantime he's worth keeping around unless he can be spun off to someone who sees him as a full-time CFer. Dealing him as a part-timer isn't going to net you much in which case he's more valuable hanging around Queens.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 30 2009 06:37 PM Re: Undercover Angel

[quote="Frayed Knot":2tzxowyv]Pagan ... needs more than several partial seasons before we can know what he is.[/quote:2tzxowyv] Maybe, but Pagan has improved with every single season. I'm curious, but how many more seasons do you need to figure Frenchy out? I don't need any more, but if you need more time to figure out the declining Frenchy, why do you meanwhile give him the benefit of the doubt over Pagan?

Ceetar Dec 30 2009 07:23 PM Re: Undercover Angel

Players _do_ improve, and Francoeur certainly didn't 'decline' last year. Fluke? Probably. But not definitely. In a 'perfect' world, Francoeur has a hot April and May, reverts, and Fernando Martinez is ready in June, tears up the league, wins Rookie of the Year honors as well as World Series MVP.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 30 2009 07:48 PM Re: Undercover Angel

[quote="Ceetar":1qo9jhwg]Players _do_ improve, and Francoeur certainly didn't 'decline' last year. Fluke? Probably. But not definitely.[/quote:1qo9jhwg] True, but it's not fair to to credit Frenchy for his very good "partial" Met season while simultaneously dismissing Pagan's just as good if not better partial Met season.

Frayed Knot Dec 30 2009 08:22 PM Re: Undercover Angel

[quote="batmagadanleadoff":23np580l][quote="Frayed Knot":23np580l]Pagan ... needs more than several partial seasons before we can know what he is.[/quote:23np580l] Maybe, but Pagan has improved with every single season. I'm curious, but how many more seasons do you need to figure Frenchy out? I don't need any more, but if you need more time to figure out the declining Frenchy, why do you meanwhile give him the benefit of the doubt over Pagan?[/quote:23np580l] Point is that Francoeur has several complete seasons and 3,000 PAs so far vs nothing but partials for Pagan and only 800, nearly half of which came this year. Now maybe the more established record for Francoeur could be considered a bad thing rather than a good - although Francoeur is the one 2-1/2 years younger And for all of Frenchie's famous lack of walking, Pagan's career rate of .050 is barely better than JF's .040 Their slugging (IsoP) rates are virtually identical - something maybe propped up by Angel's possibly freakish triple rate this season.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 30 2009 08:35 PM Re: Undercover Angel

[quote="Frayed Knot":v75mmz97]And for all of Frenchie's famous lack of walking, Pagan's career rate of .050 is barely better than JF's .040[/quote:v75mmz97] According to Baseball Reference, Pagan's lifetime walk rate is .074%; Francouer's is .047%. They're not close. Pagan's slightly below league average while Francouer is dismally bad. Pagan's walk rate is almost 60% better. Pagan's lifetime OWN% is .540; Francouer's is .461. Pagan creates 5.4 runs per game (lifetime); Francouer creates 4.6. If the Mets had to choose between the two, offensively Pagan helps the Mets ... Francouer doesn't.

MFS62 Dec 31 2009 07:51 AM Re: Undercover Angel

I votes won't survive the season. If he continues to make baserunning mistakes, the fans will lynch him - literally. He's the perfect example of why baseball should institute the designated thinker. Later

Edgy DC Dec 31 2009 08:05 AM Re: Undercover Angel

I'm going to go out on a limb right now and bet (yup, my Mr. Met lunchbox on the line again) that Met fans will not literally lynch Angel Pagan, under any circumstances.

Frayed Knot Dec 31 2009 08:06 AM Re: Undercover Angel

[quote="batmagadanleadoff":bp0jrykz][quote="Frayed Knot":bp0jrykz]And for all of Frenchie's famous lack of walking, Pagan's career rate of .050 is barely better than JF's .040[/quote:bp0jrykz] According to Baseball Reference, Pagan's lifetime walk rate is .074%; Francouer's is .047%. They're not close. Pagan's slightly below league average while Francouer is dismally bad. Pagan's walk rate is almost 60% better. Pagan's lifetime OWN% is .540; Francouer's is .461. Pagan creates 5.4 runs per game (lifetime); Francouer creates 4.6. If the Mets had to choose between the two, offensively Pagan helps the Mets ... Francouer doesn't.[/quote:bp0jrykz] A Pagan Career BA = .281 A Pagan Career OBA = .331 That was .050 when I went to school - although admittedly that was a while ago

batmagadanleadoff Dec 31 2009 10:30 AM Re: Undercover Angel

[quote="Frayed Knot":166dqcmj][quote="batmagadanleadoff":166dqcmj][quote="Frayed Knot":166dqcmj]And for all of Frenchie's famous lack of walking, Pagan's career rate of .050 is barely better than JF's .040[/quote:166dqcmj] According to Baseball Reference, Pagan's lifetime walk rate is .074%; Francouer's is .047%. They're not close. Pagan's slightly below league average while Francouer is dismally bad. Pagan's walk rate is almost 60% better. Pagan's lifetime OWN% is .540; Francouer's is .461. Pagan creates 5.4 runs per game (lifetime); Francouer creates 4.6. If the Mets had to choose between the two, offensively Pagan helps the Mets ... Francouer doesn't.[/quote:166dqcmj] A Pagan Career BA = .281 A Pagan Career OBA = .331 That was .050 when I went to school - although admittedly that was a while ago[/quote:166dqcmj] Happy New Year! The walk rate isn't calculated by subtracting BA from OBA; the two averages have different denominators. BA is a percentage of official at-bats, while OBA is a percentage of plate appearances. Thus, walks (among other things) are included in the denominator of OBA, but not BA. But for the record, their walk rates, as a percentage of official at bats only are .081 (Pagan) v. .050 (Francouer). By this method, Pagan's still better by about 60%, a considerable difference, mainly because Francouer is bad - unacceptably bad. Here's their relevant lifetime numbers: [u:166dqcmj]Pagan[/u:166dqcmj] PA 829 AB 752 BB 61 [u:166dqcmj]Francouer[/u:166dqcmj] PA 2940 AB 2742 BB 138

smg58 Dec 31 2009 11:52 AM Re: Undercover Angel

Pagan has a career OPS of .805 against righthanded pitching, while Francoeur's career OPS against righties is .710. The splits are more or less inverted against lefties (.717 vs. .827). It looks like an obvious platoon to me, but we'll see how things play out. Neither guy is perfect, but we can get at least average production out of right field, and we're covered if one of them tanks.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 31 2009 12:12 PM Re: Undercover Angel

[quote="smg58":1hbf8h22]Pagan has a career OPS of .805 against righthanded pitching, while Francoeur's career OPS against righties is .710. The splits are more or less inverted against lefties (.717 vs. .827). It looks like an obvious platoon to me, but we'll see how things play out. Neither guy is perfect, but we can get at least average production out of right field, and we're covered if one of them tanks.[/quote:1hbf8h22] I agree. But a RF platoon split where Pagan starts against RHP and Francouer against LHP means that Pagan will be getting about 75% of the RF starts. Based upon my earlier posts, this is obviously fine by me. But going into 2010, I don't think that the Mets intend to use Francoeur so little.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 04 2010 12:08 PM Re: Undercover Angel

Here's an excerpt from Joe Posnanski's LVP's piece (Least Valuable Players): NATIONAL LEAGUE LVP: Milton Bradley, Cubs ALSO CONSIDERED: Emilio Bonifacio, Florida, Jeff Francoeur, Braves/Mets; Jason Kendall, Milwaukee; Russell Martin, Dodgers; Edgar Renteria, San Francisco; Alfonso Soriano, Cubs It is entirely unfair to put Francoeur in the also considered department ... I know this. Francoeur was good for the Mets after he was traded. But I unfairly include him because: 1. He was so legendarily bad with the Braves -- .250/.282/.352 -- that he was well on his way to winning the award before getting traded to the Mets. 2. He was so good with the Mets -- .311/.338/.498 -- that the Mets undoubtedly believe that he is back to being the guy who was on the cover of Sports Illustrated. They will now be inspired to spend considerable money and effort to keep him in New York. And, hey, they could be right. He could be the player he was in the second half... and from everything I know about Francoeur, I hope that is what happens. He seems to be a great guy. However, I would be remiss if I did not point out: They also could be wrong -- after all, over his last 2,500 at-bats Francoeur has an 89 OPS+ and the defensive numbers seem to indicate that he has regressed into a below average outfielder. Francoeur could be a Riddler-like trap, and the Mets could be just about ready to fall in. But he was not LVP. The worst hitter in the league was Bonifacio.... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/w ... index.html