Nov 09

2011 Player Review: Angel Pagan

John Delcos of Newyorkmetsreport.com and Joe DeCaro of Metsmerizedonline.com will be doing more and more projects together with the goal of merging two successful blogs in the hope of giving our readers everything they’ll need in covering the Mets. Continuing our review of the 2011 Mets, today we take a look at Angel Pagan.

ANGEL PAGAN

THE SKINNY: You look at this guy and wonder why he’s not better with his physical tools. Pagan appeared to have a breakout year in 2010 when he hit .290 with 11 homers, 69 RBI and 32 steals. In 101 less at-bats last season Pagan hit four fewer homers with 13 less RBI. Not only were his numbers off, but he regressed in his defense and decisions on the bases. This is not a fundamentally sound player.

REASONS TO KEEP HIM: The Mets are thin in the outfield, don’t have many options on the minor league level and don’t figure to get any help in the free-agent or trade markets. … Should Jose Reyes leave, the Mets don’t have any leadoff options.

REASONS TO LET HIM GO: He could get up to $5 million in arbitration, which is a lot considering his production. … After last summer, it appears 2010 was a fluke. … Is there any reason to believe he’ll be better?

JOHN’S TAKE: The word is the Mets will tender Pagan so this might all be a moot point. I would still rather them take the gamble with Grady Sizemore, or if nothing else, see what somebody else can do. The Mets aren’t loaded with outfield options, but if Pagan produces as he did last year, he’s not offering much.

For a team wanting to get better defensively and fundamentally, Pagan doesn’t bring much to the table. Defensively, he doesn’t judge balls well and has a below average arm. In 2010 it appeared he was ready to take over centerfield, but I don’t see that anymore. For all his speed, his .322 on-base percentage is poor and his strikeouts-walks ratio is roughly 2-to-1. Let him go and move on.

JOE’S TAKE: The strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde or so it would seem where Angel Pagan is concerned. A year ago fans were clamoring for Pagan to replace Carlos Beltran in center field for his defensive exploits and some even mentioned him in the same breath as David Wright for his offensive showing in 2010. Gulp.

Pagan was a big letdown in 2011. He got off to an atrocious start at the plate to start the season batting .159 in April before hitting the DL with an oblique injury and missing nearly a month. His bat looked great when he returned, but that was offset by big declines on defense and base-running.

Pagan is proving himself to be wildly inconsistent and that’s usually the sign of a platoon player or even worse – a fourth outfielder. Is it smart for this front office to pay $5 million for such a player when the utilities at Citi Field are in danger of being turned off? Probably not, but they will anyway. It’s not like they have any better options.

One year at the helm and the new Mets caretakers now have less center field depth than last November. That means they will have to keep Pagan, but that doesn’t mean you have to like it. These are strange times in Flushing.

Nov 08

Mets have been fair with Reyes.

To those who believe the Mets haven’t been fair with Jose Reyes, I beg to differ. Reyes is coming off a five-year, $33.75 million contract. Five years ago, when the Mets’ playoff window seemed wide open, they signed cornerstones Reyes and David Wright to long-term deals at a time in their careers when they didn’t have to.

The Mets did so because Reyes was starting to raise a family and was concerned about money. The Mets weren’t being totally altruistic because their belief was Reyes was becoming an impact player and wanted to avoid arbitration and put off free agency.

Signing them young is usually a good move, but in retrospect with Reyes, the case could be made they paid him for three injury-riddled years. Even so, the market has dramatically grown more expensive the past five years, so the reverse is true that the deal might have kept Reyes from getting more.

So, it’s a gamble by each side.

This time, there would be more of a gamble by the Mets because of Reyes’ recent injury history. With Reyes seeking nearly triple of his last deal, that’s a lot of money earmarked for a player with a propensity for breaking down.

While it is true that nobody can realistically expect Reyes to give the Mets a hometown discount and leave money and years on the table, so is the reverse in that how can one expect the team to give extra years and dollars to a player who may not be healthy during his contract?

The wild card in any contract is an injury, and that is the case with Chris Capuano. The Mets took a gamble on Capuano last winter when they signed the left-hander off an injury. The Mets were rewarded when Capuano proved healthy and received a solid season. Now, Capuano wants two years, something the Mets aren’t willing to do.

 

Oct 13

What will be Mets’ splash?

Let’s not kid ourselves, the Mets won’t be players for any of the big-ticket free agents, perhaps even their own in Jose Reyes. The top pitching free agent is the Rangers’ CJ Wilson, whom the Yankees have their sights on and don’t we already know which New York team he’d choose? It’s always that way, isn’t it?

The Mets say they have the resources, but even after positive news on the legal-financial front, there’s been nothing from GM Sandy Alderson saying they’ll spend. He said they have the money to compete for Reyes, but to add little else, and with a myriad of needs and David Wright’s contract to be an issue soon, there’s not much light ahead.

It’s not comforting when the outfield dimensions and the search for a bench coach is what appears to be what passes for off-season news. On one hand, there’s a sense of comfort Alderson being up-front in pretty much saying “don’t expect much,” but on the other there’s uneasiness in knowing that’s where the Mets stand.

What we do know is the Phillies will be angry and will spend as they always do; Atlanta is always trying to improve; the Marlins will spend to try to make a splash heading into their new stadium; and the Nationals have shown a willingness to write checks.

The Mets? Well, they said they want to cut payroll by as much as $30 million. Kind of makes you want to run out and buy season-tickets now, right?

Oct 02

Bay not going anywhere.

In ticking off the Mets’ priorities for the offseason, getting rid of Jason Bay isn’t on the list, regardless of how much they’d like to shed the balance of his $66 million contract.

BAY: He's staying.

It’s amusing to hear those who said the Mets should trade, or even release the high-priced and low-achieving left fielder.

After two non-productive seasons and $16 million due him each of the next two years – plus a $17 million option or a $3 million buyout – just who is lining up to trade for him?

And, considering how the Mets do business, you know they aren’t going to eat $35 million. Bay is here for the duration.

Whether it was trying to make a splash in the first year of Citi Field, or yielding to public opinion to add more power, the Mets clearly made the wrong decision with Bay.

And, it’s not second guessing either, because they knew Citi Field’s dimensions and their stated objective was to build with pitching, defense and speed. Bay has played better defense than expected, but he’s still not the player to take the Mets to the next level.

The Mets are now considering altering Citi Field’s dimensions to better accommodate Bay and David Wright. No doubt, their intent is to try to salvage something out of Bay’s contract because he isn’t going anywhere.

Much like it was with Oliver Perez, the Mets are saddled with a bad contract and hoping for the best. The only value Bay has to the Mets is the hope he pulls it together.

Not exactly a position of strength.