LambeauLeap1250 WSSP


  
Go to page 1, 2  Next  [ 28 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply

Angel Pagan?

Author Message
Online  Angel Pagan?
#1

Posted: January 12, 2017, 2:38 PM Post
Posts: 10271
Pagan's still out there. At 35, he's more suited to be a 4th OF, but he'd be an improvement over Kirk and be a guy who could possibly be flipped at the deadline. Imagine he's pricing himself rather high and hence nobody's taken him. Still runs well enough to have stolen 15 bases last year, so he'd fit with Counsell's style too.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Angel Pagan?
#2

Posted: January 12, 2017, 2:49 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 5014
JohnBriggs12 said:
Pagan's still out there. At 35, he's more suited to be a 4th OF, but he'd be an improvement over Kirk and be a guy who could possibly be flipped at the deadline. Imagine he's pricing himself rather high and hence nobody's taken him. Still runs well enough to have stolen 15 bases last year, so he'd fit with Counsell's style too.

Pagan can't play CF very well any more. He was awful in 2015, and the Giants only put him there last year for four games.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Angel Pagan?
#3

Posted: January 12, 2017, 4:40 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 3816
Angel Pagan - interesting contradiction in his name...


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Angel Pagan?
#4

Posted: January 12, 2017, 4:45 PM Post
Posts: 3422
Not a chance. 11years-17WAR
has been a negative defensively for 5years running. The bat isn't anything special. He'll want far more than he's worth to play here. At his age/talents Id think he'd want to play for a team with Playoff potential...even though he has WS titles with the Giants... Just what keeps up his motivation if he's signed to a rebuilding team? Especially becoming a 4th OF or 5th on that team? Just don't buy in to either side wanting a deal.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Angel Pagan?
#5

Posted: January 12, 2017, 9:08 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 5731
Saw the player name and immediately knew who started the thread. Totally pointless to sign him unless a bus full of Brewers outfielders drives off a cliff.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Angel Pagan?
#6

Posted: January 12, 2017, 10:20 PM Post
Posts: 12275
but he has a name we have heard and was good once a long time ago.

Fan is short for fanatic.
I blame Wang.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Angel Pagan?
#7

Posted: January 13, 2017, 9:13 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 6084
How can he be a flip candidate when no one wants him for free right now? Way too much flipping talk, if it were that easy to flip players, you'd think it would happen all the time.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Angel Pagan?
#8

Posted: January 13, 2017, 9:49 AM Post
Posts: 5324
Take ABs away from Perez and potentially Brinson so we can try to flip a 35 year old OF for a middling prospect? Pass. I have no problem finding someone other than Kirk N, but it needs to be someone on the right side of 30.

I really don't like this flipping concept to begin with. Last year was a bit different since CF and most f the IF was wide open. Made sense to bring a bunch of guys in, see who could stick, and try to trade others if there was a surplus. We're another year down the road now, no reason to do that- especially in the OF.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Angel Pagan?
#9

Posted: January 13, 2017, 10:56 AM Post
Posts: 544
Location: Milwaukee
Pagan made 30M the past 3yrs. Kirk is making 900k this year. The OF is already set and Brinson is on the brink of making his way up followed by Cordell and that doesn't include Reed as a potential backup. There are plenty of backup OFs north and south of 30yrs old I'd rather have than Kirk, including Pagan, but factoring in comp and the OF situation there's no logical reasoning to bring a veteran on right now to try to flip as that requires starter ABs.

Additionally, Pagan played 4 games in CF last year because they acquired Span as the starter shifting him to LF. The Giants have been a strong defensive team for a while now, that's a major focus for them, and Pagan's been a part of that the past 5yrs. Saying he's not good defensively, while solely citing (defensive) WAR, is outrageous.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Angel Pagan?
#10

Posted: January 13, 2017, 11:10 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 6137
They already have too many outfielders, and they're all young with actual promise (other than Braun, who's just good already).


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Angel Pagan?
#11

Posted: January 13, 2017, 11:13 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 7706
I agree they don't need more OF at this point.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Angel Pagan?
#12

Posted: January 13, 2017, 11:36 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1165
jerichoholicninja said:
Saw the player name and immediately knew who started the thread. Totally pointless to sign him unless a bus full of Brewers outfielders drives off a cliff.

ditto. we already have a couple of better versions of angel pagan on the team and in the minors.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Angel Pagan?
#13

Posted: January 13, 2017, 12:46 PM Post
User avatar

Resident Hipster
Global Moderator
Posts: 10606
MKE81 said:
Additionally, Pagan played 4 games in CF last year because they acquired Span as the starter shifting him to LF. The Giants have been a strong defensive team for a while now, that's a major focus for them, and Pagan's been a part of that the past 5yrs. Saying he's not good defensively, while solely citing (defensive) WAR, is outrageous.

The fan scouting reports on Fangraphs (I KNOW FANGRAPHS OMG HOW CLICHE) seem to indicate a decline in defensive ability for Pagan over the past few years. His overall grades since 2013: 60, 55, 39, 32. He's also 35 going on 36, and missed a lot of time due to injury in 2013-2014, so it's not difficult to think that decline in grading might have some merit. He never had a great arm, and he's certainly not as fast as he was at his peak with the Mets a half dozen years ago.

He was at one point a good defender, but once being a good defender playing on a generally strong defensive team does not make him a good defender at present.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Angel Pagan?
#14

Posted: January 20, 2017, 3:34 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 5125
The only position where it made sense to sign a veteran "flip candidate" was bullpen/closer, and we just did that.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Angel Pagan?
#15

Posted: January 20, 2017, 4:35 PM Post
Posts: 5420
Location: Kenosha, WI
monty57 said:
The only position where it made sense to sign a veteran "flip candidate" was bullpen/closer, and we just did that.


Didn't we have interest in Michael Saunders though?


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Angel Pagan?
#16

Posted: January 20, 2017, 4:43 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 5731
MrTPlush said:
monty57 said:
The only position where it made sense to sign a veteran "flip candidate" was bullpen/closer, and we just did that.


Didn't we have interest in Michael Saunders though?


I don't remember seeing that anywhere. And it wouldn't make any sense to me. Saunder is not a Stearns guy at all and then factoring in the loss of a draft pick and I don't see why they would have had any interest.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Angel Pagan?
#17

Posted: January 20, 2017, 5:40 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 4662
jerichoholicninja said:
MrTPlush said:
monty57 said:
The only position where it made sense to sign a veteran "flip candidate" was bullpen/closer, and we just did that.


Didn't we have interest in Michael Saunders though?


I don't remember seeing that anywhere. And it wouldn't make any sense to me. Saunder is not a Stearns guy at all and then factoring in the loss of a draft pick and I don't see why they would have had any interest.


http://www.brewcrewball.com/2017/1/17/14298762/brewers-michael-saunders-free-agency


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Angel Pagan?
#18

Posted: January 20, 2017, 9:42 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 5731
That article pretty much outlines all the reasons it made no sense and the Brewers "interest" was a throwaway line in a story. I'm sure the Brewers checked in on a lot of free agents with very little interest in actually signing them.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Angel Pagan?
#19

Posted: January 20, 2017, 10:13 PM Post
Posts: 544
Location: Milwaukee
And That said:
MKE81 said:
Additionally, Pagan played 4 games in CF last year because they acquired Span as the starter shifting him to LF. The Giants have been a strong defensive team for a while now, that's a major focus for them, and Pagan's been a part of that the past 5yrs. Saying he's not good defensively, while solely citing (defensive) WAR, is outrageous.

The fan scouting reports on Fangraphs (I KNOW FANGRAPHS OMG HOW CLICHE) seem to indicate a decline in defensive ability for Pagan over the past few years. His overall grades since 2013: 60, 55, 39, 32. He's also 35 going on 36, and missed a lot of time due to injury in 2013-2014, so it's not difficult to think that decline in grading might have some merit. He never had a great arm, and he's certainly not as fast as he was at his peak with the Mets a half dozen years ago.

He was at one point a good defender, but once being a good defender playing on a generally strong defensive team does not make him a good defender at present.

Just because there's a decline in defensive ability doesn't mean he's not fine defensively. And you speak as if he wasn't with the Giants last year starting for them. Fangraphs defensive modeling is completely and utterly pointless. They don't even adjust based on defensive shifts, which are insanely common in today's game. There are several variables that make-up one's defensive ability that cannot be measured analytically. So continue to cite defensive WAR as if it's a hard selling point.

All this is moot given Pagan doesn't come close to fitting a need and doesn't make any sense.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Angel Pagan?
#20

Posted: January 20, 2017, 11:58 PM Post
User avatar

Resident Hipster
Global Moderator
Posts: 10606
MKE81 said:
So continue to cite defensive WAR as if it's a hard selling point.

I cited Fangraphs defensive WAR exactly zero times in the post you quoted.

Fan scouting reports are reports compiled by asking people who watch the player play, what they think. I believe these have been around since before Fangraphs in some shape or form. Tom Tango came up with them, IIRC.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Go to page 1, 2  Next  [ 28 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply
  


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search this forum (phpBB search):
Jump to:  
Search entire board (Google search):
Google
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Test