OK, here starts the first of a two-part regarding the incessant talk-radio, message-board and comments-section trade chatter.
So many things are overlooked when speculating on potential trades, but none more so than the economic factors involved. I’ll get deeper into that in the following post (about the supposedly available pitchers), but this one’s about Angel Pagan, a name frequently bandied about as trade bait for an ace pitcher.
There are plenty of obvious reasons the Mets shouldn’t trade Angel Pagan. He’s really good, for one, and a big part of the reason they’re even in contention this late in the season. And dealing Pagan because you’re relying on Carlos Beltran’s return to full health is just, well, you know. C’mon.
Inextricably linked to Pagan’s production, but perhaps less obvious, is his value to the team moving forward. Pagan will be paid $1.45 million this year, according to Cots. Per Fangraphs, he has already been worth about $9.9 million. And Pagan is under Mets control for the next two seasons. He’ll likely get a big raise in arbitration, but the total probably won’t come close to what he would cost to replace on the open market.
That means, if he stays healthy — no sure thing, of course — Pagan will provide the Mets with premium production at a bargain rate through 2012. He is precisely the type of player the Mets need more of: A low-cost contributor that allows them the payroll flexibility to pursue big-name free agents.
Obviously every angle in all trades should be explored, and if the D-backs come and ask the Mets for Pagan in a straight-up swap for Dan Haren, then, well, peace. But Pagan is worth more than a rental.
Using WAR as a quick-and-dirty reference point to evaluate players, Cliff Lee has been worth about 1.2 wins over Pagan this season. If they were to deal Pagan for Lee at midseason and both Lee and Pagan continue their torrid paces, the Mets will gain about 1.2 wins for the remainder of 2010, and that’s worth something. But the Mariners will receive Pagan’s cost-controlled production through 2012, which is worth a hell of a lot more.
Tedquarters 
I agree here Ted. But I think the main thing is Beltrans uncertain health. If Carlos were comming ack from say some freak injury, like a broken bone, or even a pulled hammy, something where you can feel comfortable that hes healed, then I’d be all for Trading Pagan. Stike while the iron is hot right? His value may never again be this high.
I do agree with all your points about Pagan from an economic standpoint, in tht he will be cheap and productive, but thos points are also what would make him more attractive to other teams, and thus further increase his value. So I’d be ok with trading him as long as th return was proper. But since Beltran is not anything near a certainty, its an irrelevant arguement in the first place.
THANK YOU! My forehead is red from slapping my head with all the ridiculous “Trade/Bench Pagan” comments on the Mets blogosphere lately.
It’s just really confusing how all the talk is ‘What do we do with Pagan?’ when the obvious answer is put him in right field and bench Francoeur.
The problem is that most agree that its not a good idea to send any one of these guys to a steady nench role. Francouer, even with all his faults is a big part of what this team is doing on and off the field, just like Pagan is, just like Bay is, and just like Beltran will be when he gets back.
So the idea is to keep all these guys active, meaning someone has to become that 4th OFer type that moves around a bit, and the logical choice for that is Pagan, because he is versitile defensively. If you are going to put one guy in that “plays 5 days a week” roving roll, which is the only way to keep all the guys playing regularly, thne it has to be Pagan. Its what would likely be best for the team, even if Pagan undeservedly losing the general title of “starter’ in the OF.
If Pagan plays 5 days a week, I suppose I can live with it.
But I don’t get the logic in weakening your starting lineup to improve your bench.
And I’m not crazy about putting everyone in boxes like Pagan is fast and versatile so he’s a Fourth Outfielder. Francoeur has a big arm and (imagined) power, so he’s an Everyday Player.
I never said Pagan has to be a 4th OFer in general because he fast. I’m saying on this particular team, at this particular time, all these guys are key to the Mets success in what they are doing not only on the field, but off it, in the sense that guys like Bay and Francoeur set an example in how they play hard and go about thier business, even if they are not playing to thier best at times. I just think it would hurt the team more to relegate any of these guys to a full time bench spot, so like I said to make that work, Pagan would clearly be the best option to move around. I mean if he spells Beltran once or twice a week inthe begining, Bay once a week, and Francoeur twice a week against right handers, hes almost a full time player.
I hear you. And I appreciate your reasoned takes on unpopular positions re: Manuel, Francouer, whoever.
I guess I just don’t buy that Francoeur has played a big role in this team’s success. His numbers are mediocre and the undefined clubhouse stuff, I don’t know.
This is all territory that’s been covered a million times, but given the lack of success of his Braves teams, the Mets last year, etc I find it hard to believe his smile or jokes to Kevin Burkhardt just started having an impact.
You are right about the off field stuff being hard to quantify, but I dont think it can be ingnored. Everyone from KB, to Ed Coleman, to the other players you hear from etc, speaks of the impact that guys like FRancoeur and Bay can have when setting and example for youngs players in how they go about thier business. If Frenchy is hitting like he was for a stretch going 5 for 60, then you certainly have to take him out and play Pagan there full time, but if he can play decently, as he has for much of the year outside the horrid slump, then I think the team owes it to all these guys to keep them involved with some regualr playing time.
I think the commonly over looked aspect, by Frenchy advocates at least, of his “off field contributions” and “clubhouse presence”, is that he can still provide those things as a 4th OF off the bench. On-the field stuff is what should determine playing time. If Frenchy can’t be clubhouse leader as a sub….then that’s not much of a leader, imo.
I dont agree with that at all Kyle. That is just not true. Its nearly impossible for a player who is not playing regularly to be the same type of leader they were when in the lineup each day. Why do you think its a well known fact that pitchers are never thought of as guys who can truly be ‘leaders’ of a team. Cant be that guy if you arent on the field.
Think about it, how is a guy supposed to get in another guys face about something, or call someone out when they are a bench player. Its just doesnt work that way. Sure Frenchy could set a good example by taking one for the team and sitting, but thats completely different from being a leader.
Pardon me, but Frenchy seems like the last guy to get in anyone’s face about anything. He sounds like someone who cracks wise, pumps people up, and keeps the clubhouse loose. Something easy done by a bench-player.
I’m going to again have to respectfully disagree here Shamik, its impossible for a bench player to realy be a type of leader. Its just doesnt work. Even I terms of just joking around and pumping people up. Something is lost from a guy who is a bench player as opposed to a guy who is out there on the field every day. Not saying other players on theteam dont respect the bench players, but a bench player’s level is knocked down a notch, making it impossible for tehm to carry themselves the same way.
Agreed. There is probably a decent deal out there to be had for Angel Pagan, but it isn’t for a Cliff Lee rental, especially where the outfield is so uncertain here in Queens.
Honestly for Cliff Lee, I’d trade Pagan in a heartbeat. When other deals suggested for Lee center around Neise, Davis, Mejia etc, I’d much rather part with Pagan, a journeyman OFer whos basically had one great half season under his belt.
I agree with Ted you dont trade him for certain pitchers, but if Seatle would take Pagan and a B-lebel prospect or 2 for Lee, I’d pack Angels bags myself. I understand its a risk if Beltran cant stay healthy, but its Cliff Lee, he’d be worththe risk IMO.
Hmm. Now that I think some more on this, I guess I would trade Pagan for Cliff Lee if only because I have the feeling he’s just going become a “bench piece” once Beltran comes back, so he loses value. Not my preferred move, but if that’s what it took maybe it makes sense.
I respectfully disagree.
The point of trading for a rental of Lee would be to compete immediately. Giving up Angel would hamper that ability to compete immediately. I don’t believe that going forward with Jesus Feliciano (as much as I like him), as the starting centerfielder, is something anyone should be comfortable with.
Hello? Carlos Beltran anyone? If Carlos Beltran comes back Pagan is more expendable. The only real risk is that Carlos is not that reliable. But IMO I’d take that risk in order to get Lee for a guy who was considered nothing more than a 4th OFer before the season.
No lie, I had a dream last night in which I argued with Omar Minaya and Jerry Manuel about Angel Pagan. According to Jerry, his versatility was too good coming off the bench to start him every day, and according to Omar, his injury risk was too high to bring him back as a free agent next year. So, if my dreams are correct, Angel Pagan won’t start much when Beltran comes back, and he won’t come back to the Mets next year.
Pagan turns 29 next week, is oft injured and has never played more than 88 MLB games in one season. His value has never been higher.
The horrible irony is if it weren’t for Beltran’s situation Pagan never would have had the opportunity to enhance his value, but it is precisely because of Beltran’s situation that the Mets cannot afford to part with Pagan right now.
the concept of trading Pagan and relying on Beltan’s Willis Reed Knee is insanity, and precisely why with each ticking minute, I fully expect the Mets to make such an insanity laden move and totally anticipate seeing Jesus Feliciano manning CF in the heart of pennant race.
Ugh.
Its certainly a risk…. but I would hardly consider a trade of a guy who was nothing more than a 4th OFer going into the year, for one of the best picthers in the game (even if he a rental) and ‘insanity laden’ move. Most would call it a steal.
if you were building a fantasy baseball roster, yes, great move, but this is a situation where you actually have to manage rosters, budgets, long term and short term.
There is no replacement for Pagan. So the Mets would then need to trade for another centerfielder. Anyone thinking Beltran is going to come back and shine is drinking shine.
“Pagan is worth more than a rental.”
‘Nuff said.
Just terrible, Mets news and information from a guy who knows nothing about baseball. Thanks Ted. Yeah, let’s hold on to Pagan, he is better than Lee. Career Quadruple A Cash Considerations guy.
Yes, Ted is just a humorist with no vested fan interest in the Mets or baseball.
He just writes this in between Chulpas. :0
The Mets would be SIGNIFICANTLY downgrading themselves offensively while acquiring a good pitcher for like two months, unless the trade is made next week.
You have to score runs and catch the ball too to win games.
Brutal.
(Hated) Ryan,
Why do you keep reading this blog if you hate it so much? There are plenty of other news/commentary sources out on the interwebs. This was such a nice, polite, and thoughtful thread not too long ago. Smile, dude.