Angel Pagan = Carlos Beltran?

[goonys evil twin]

Can I just link to yesterday's rain on Pagan's parade thread to save us all the trouble of doing it again here?

 

I just don't see why people have to lie to themselves, and everybody else, about the likelihood of Pagan turning into a good starting position player. You can be happy for a guy to reach a lifelong dream of making a team without being delusional about his future.

[CubinNY]

He's never played in the MLs so it hard to say what he is definitively. There are guys that have outstanding projections who turn out to be busts! The opposite is true as well.

 

What is the opposite of that? Guys who have done nothing in the minors then turned into Carlos Beltran? Just because a guy hasn't played in the majors doesn't mean you can't have a pretty good idea of what his limitations will be in the majors.

 

Of course not. The opposite is a player who comes into the League with little or no expectations (or strictly as a backup) but proves his worth when he's able to play everyday. He doesn't have to develop into Beltran to have value. Minor League productivity doesn't always equate to ML success.

 

see gary scott & rosey brown to mention a few

 

You are completly turning your arguement on it's head.

 

We are not talking about a guy with great minor league numbers here. We are talking about a washout who was purchased for next to nothing.

 

He had a good spring and people have compared him to:

 

Carlos Beltran

Scott Podsednik

Eric Gange

Tori Hunter

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Pagan will not be the next Beltran. Let's at least see some success above the AA level before making that comparison.

 

I do like Pagan off the bench, especially instead of Grissom, who looked horrible this spring.

[Chocolate Milk]

Can I just link to yesterday's rain on Pagan's parade thread to save us all the trouble of doing it again here?

 

I just don't see why people have to lie to themselves, and everybody else, about the likelihood of Pagan turning into a good starting position player. You can be happy for a guy to reach a lifelong dream of making a team without being delusional about his future.

 

I don't see the point of relentlessly bashing Pagan because some are hoping he could turn out to be a decent bench guy. If he does, great, if he doesn't, we'll get rid of him and bring someone else up. Pagan's overall effect on the team is minimal in any event.

 

I'm not really sure who said he was going to be a starting position player for us.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Pagan = Ced Landrum

 

There! I said it!

[mg420]

He's never played in the MLs so it hard to say what he is definitively. There are guys that have outstanding projections who turn out to be busts! The opposite is true as well.

 

What is the opposite of that? Guys who have done nothing in the minors then turned into Carlos Beltran? Just because a guy hasn't played in the majors doesn't mean you can't have a pretty good idea of what his limitations will be in the majors.

 

Of course not. The opposite is a player who comes into the League with little or no expectations (or strictly as a backup) but proves his worth when he's able to play everyday. He doesn't have to develop into Beltran to have value. Minor League productivity doesn't always equate to ML success.

 

see gary scott & rosey brown to mention a few

 

You are completly turning your arguement on it's head.

 

We are not talking about a guy with great minor league numbers here. We are talking about a washout who was purchased for next to nothing.

 

He had a good spring and people have compared him to:

 

Carlos Beltran

Scott Podsednik

Eric Gange

Tori Hunter

 

actually the point is that minor leauge success/failure does not always translate to big leauge success/failure. alot of guys do great in the minors and never have any major leauge success just as some guys dont shine until they get in the bigs. imo you are the one missing the point.

[goonys evil twin]

Can I just link to yesterday's rain on Pagan's parade thread to save us all the trouble of doing it again here?

 

I just don't see why people have to lie to themselves, and everybody else, about the likelihood of Pagan turning into a good starting position player. You can be happy for a guy to reach a lifelong dream of making a team without being delusional about his future.

 

I don't see the point of relentlessly bashing Pagan because some are hoping he could turn out to be a decent bench guy. If he does, great, if he doesn't, we'll get rid of him and bring someone else up. Pagan's overall effect on the team is minimal in any event.

 

I'm not really sure who said he was going to be a starting position player for us.

 

People have compared him to Carlos Beltran. People have said "we just don't know", people have said he could turn into a good starter (whether it's on the Cubs or not is pointless).

 

I'm not bashing Pagan, I'm discussing his future with a sense of realism, unlike those who choose to dream of him as something he's not. Pagan is actually exactly the type of player I want on the bench; young, cheap, with some talent and not a complete waste in the OBP department. I love Pagan because he's not Jose Macias. Now, they just need somebody on the bench who can be a threat from the right side.

[Blueheart05]

Can I just link to yesterday's rain on Pagan's parade thread to save us all the trouble of doing it again here?

 

I just don't see why people have to lie to themselves, and everybody else, about the likelihood of Pagan turning into a good starting position player. You can be happy for a guy to reach a lifelong dream of making a team without being delusional about his future.

 

I don't think that a post here, in support of Pagan, means that anyone is fooled into thinking he's the next impact player in baseball (at least not from my perspective). However, the idea that he will be a complete bust because he's just "bad" isn't right either. I'm happy for the guy and I hope he performs well for the Cubs in his limited role. Who knows, he may turn out to be a very streaky player. Let's hope his hot streak lasts into the season.

[goonys evil twin]

actually the point is that minor leauge success/failure does not always translate to big leauge success/failure. alot of guys do great in the minors and never have any major leauge success just as some guys dont shine until they get in the bigs. imo you are the one missing the point.

 

They don't translate exactly, but if adjusted for age, level and competition, they come pretty close. There just aren't many guys who have a minor league career like Pagan who end up being successful. Pagan is nothing like Beltran. He might one day start most of his team's games somewhere. But a lot of crappy guys have had starting jobs for extended periods of time. Cubs fans should hope Pagan has what it takes to be a decent bench guy for 162 games and stop trying to pretend he's going to turn into a good starter.

[Blueheart05]

Can I just link to yesterday's rain on Pagan's parade thread to save us all the trouble of doing it again here?

 

I just don't see why people have to lie to themselves, and everybody else, about the likelihood of Pagan turning into a good starting position player. You can be happy for a guy to reach a lifelong dream of making a team without being delusional about his future.

 

I don't see the point of relentlessly bashing Pagan because some are hoping he could turn out to be a decent bench guy. If he does, great, if he doesn't, we'll get rid of him and bring someone else up. Pagan's overall effect on the team is minimal in any event.

 

I'm not really sure who said he was going to be a starting position player for us.

 

People have compared him to Carlos Beltran. People have said "we just don't know", people have said he could turn into a good starter (whether it's on the Cubs or not is pointless).

 

I'm not bashing Pagan, I'm discussing his future with a sense of realism, unlike those who choose to dream of him as something he's not. Pagan is actually exactly the type of player I want on the bench; young, cheap, with some talent and not a complete waste in the OBP department. I love Pagan because he's not Jose Macias. Now, they just need somebody on the bench who can be a threat from the right side.

 

The Mets compared him to Beltran. I think the comparison was used here to accentuate his potential for diamond-in-the-rough status. I also don't see anything wrong with saying he has the potential to be better than he's shown in the Minors.

[Chocolate Milk]

I'm not bashing Pagan, I'm discussing his future with a sense of realism, unlike those who choose to dream of him as something he's not. Pagan is actually exactly the type of player I want on the bench; young, cheap, with some talent and not a complete waste in the OBP department. I love Pagan because he's not Jose Macias. Now, they just need somebody on the bench who can be a threat from the right side.

 

It seems like we agree on him.

 

One thing that is strange is that he's hit 4 HR's in 37 AB's in the spring while only hitting 15 in 2048AB's over his career. Granted spring training number don't mean much but I wonder if there is anything behind that (change of approach, hitting mechanics, etc..) or if it's just dumb luck.

[goonys evil twin]

However, the idea that he will be a complete bust because he's just "bad" isn't right either.

 

What's a bust? Can you really bust when nobody has expectations for you? People were talking about Pagan being in the Cubs starting outfield next year. While that might not be a huge stretch, given Hendry's inability to field a quality OF, it's going beyond realistic discussions of his future. I think Pagan might have a nice career as a bench player, and he might end up on a team that has to play him everyday. For now, it doesn't make much sense to do anything but just hope he can be mildly productive for this team.

[goonys evil twin]

I'm not bashing Pagan, I'm discussing his future with a sense of realism, unlike those who choose to dream of him as something he's not. Pagan is actually exactly the type of player I want on the bench; young, cheap, with some talent and not a complete waste in the OBP department. I love Pagan because he's not Jose Macias. Now, they just need somebody on the bench who can be a threat from the right side.

 

It seems like we agree on him.

 

One thing that is strange is that he's hit 4 HR's in 37 AB's in the spring while only hitting 15 in 2048AB's over his career. Granted spring training number don't mean much but I wonder if there is anything behind that (change of approach, hitting mechanics, etc..) or if it's just dumb luck.

 

Balls fly out in Arizona. He's spent every other spring in Florida. I don't think a homerun barrage in the spring means anything.

[CubinNY]

I'm not bashing Pagan, I'm discussing his future with a sense of realism, unlike those who choose to dream of him as something he's not. Pagan is actually exactly the type of player I want on the bench; young, cheap, with some talent and not a complete waste in the OBP department. I love Pagan because he's not Jose Macias. Now, they just need somebody on the bench who can be a threat from the right side.

 

It seems like we agree on him.

 

One thing that is strange is that he's hit 4 HR's in 37 AB's in the spring while only hitting 15 in 2048AB's over his career. Granted spring training number don't mean much but I wonder if there is anything behind that (change of approach, hitting mechanics, etc..) or if it's just dumb luck.

 

Arizona weather.

 

Pagan is not a guy I want to see on the bench for the Cubs THIS YEAR. IMO They need someone with some pop. I'd prefer Sing or Restovich.

 

Pagen might make a good 5th outfielder but the Cubs need someone capeable of hitting a HR on the bench.

Edited March 29, 2006 by CubinNY

[goonys evil twin]

The Mets compared him to Beltran. I think the comparison was used here to accentuate his potential for diamond-in-the-rough status. I also don't see anything wrong with saying he has the potential to be better than he's shown in the Minors.

 

The Mets supposedly compared him to Beltran (although it was probably one overly zealous drunken scout and not the organization) and then somebody started this thread saying he's heard that before and that there is some sort of credence to that comparison. There is nothing to base that comparison on. Pagan can't hold Beltran's jock. He'll never come close to being as good as Beltran. Being a better major leaguer than minor leaguer is one thing. It wouldn't take much for Pagan to have better numbers in the majors, because his minor numbers weren't good. But talking about him being a diamond in the rough who turns into Beltran, or anything close to that is just unrealistic.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

If the Mets really thought Pagan was the next Beltran, they would not have simply sold his contract to the Cubs.

[Chocolate Milk]

I'm not bashing Pagan, I'm discussing his future with a sense of realism, unlike those who choose to dream of him as something he's not. Pagan is actually exactly the type of player I want on the bench; young, cheap, with some talent and not a complete waste in the OBP department. I love Pagan because he's not Jose Macias. Now, they just need somebody on the bench who can be a threat from the right side.

 

It seems like we agree on him.

 

One thing that is strange is that he's hit 4 HR's in 37 AB's in the spring while only hitting 15 in 2048AB's over his career. Granted spring training number don't mean much but I wonder if there is anything behind that (change of approach, hitting mechanics, etc..) or if it's just dumb luck.

 

Balls fly out in Arizona. He's spent every other spring in Florida. I don't think a homerun barrage in the spring means anything.

 

It probably doesn't but that is a quantum leap. I'd like to see someone ask him about it to see if he has made changes in his approach.

[goonys evil twin]

Pagan is not a guy I want to see on the bench for the Cubs THIS YEAR. IMP They need someone with som pop. I'd prefer Sing or Restovich.

 

Pagen might make a good 5th outfielder but the Cubs need someone capeable of hitting a HR on the bench.

 

The Cubs bench is weak all around, and even with Pagan there is room for a guy with RH pop. I see nothing wrong with adding him. It's much better than most Cubs decisions on the bench. Just the fact that he's not a $1 million 33 year old with a sub .300 OBP is progress.

[JGalt73]

Top 5 comparable players from BP:

Milt Cuyler; Coco Crisp; Tim Raines, Jr.; Johnny Damon; Juan Beniquez

[Blueheart05]

However, the idea that he will be a complete bust because he's just "bad" isn't right either.

 

What's a bust? Can you really bust when nobody has expectations for you? People were talking about Pagan being in the Cubs starting outfield next year. While that might not be a huge stretch, given Hendry's inability to field a quality OF, it's going beyond realistic discussions of his future. I think Pagan might have a nice career as a bench player, and he might end up on a team that has to play him everyday. For now, it doesn't make much sense to do anything but just hope he can be mildly productive for this team.

 

By "bust," I'm talking about the comparison of Pagan with Scott McClain...

 

I can also think of scenarios where Pagan is our starting CF (it's not too far fetched). His role on the 2006 Cubs is a backup. I don't see why we can't also think about his potential future role on this team. Considering CF is not locked up for the future (and the alternative is another Minor League guy who still has holes in his game), there maybe room for Pagan as a starter next year. We're just thinking about possibilities...

[TenzilKem]

 

It seems like we agree on him.

 

One thing that is strange is that he's hit 4 HR's in 37 AB's in the spring while only hitting 15 in 2048AB's over his career. Granted spring training number don't mean much but I wonder if there is anything behind that (change of approach, hitting mechanics, etc..) or if it's just dumb luck.

 

I read somewhere--not sure, maybe Daily Herald notes--that the Mets tried to get Pagan to emphasize hitting down on the ball to utilize his speed. In other words, they took the same approach that the Cubs tried to take with Corey Patterson. Maybe he's benefitting from the Cubs' laissez-faire approach to hitting instruction.

[goonys evil twin]

By "bust," I'm talking about the comparison of Pagan with Scott McClain...

 

I can also think of scenarios where Pagan is our starting CF (it's not too far fetched). His role on the 2006 Cubs is a backup. I don't see why we can't also think about his potential future role on this team. Considering CF is not locked up for the future (and the alternative is another Minor League guy who still has holes in his game), there maybe room for Pagan as a starter next year. We're just thinking about possibilities...

 

That is not a possibility, it's a disastrous option. Pagan could start for the team. It would suck and the team would suffer because of it, but he could do it. Ryan Theriot could start at third base if Aramis walks or is injured. Neifi could start at SS. All these things could happen, and they would all suck if they did. If his future role on this team is starter it most likely means Pie is a bust and Hendry fails to field a good OF, again.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

The Mets compared him to Beltran. I think the comparison was used here to accentuate his potential for diamond-in-the-rough status. I also don't see anything wrong with saying he has the potential to be better than he's shown in the Minors.

 

The Mets supposedly compared him to Beltran (although it was probably one overly zealous drunken scout and not the organization) and then somebody started this thread saying he's heard that before and that there is some sort of credence to that comparison. There is nothing to base that comparison on. Pagan can't hold Beltran's jock. He'll never come close to being as good as Beltran. Being a better major leaguer than minor leaguer is one thing. It wouldn't take much for Pagan to have better numbers in the majors, because his minor numbers weren't good. But talking about him being a diamond in the rough who turns into Beltran, or anything close to that is just unrealistic.

 

No, but I bet Jimmy Edmonds would.

[Shawon12]

This will be a fun post to revisit in August. A lot of people are giving strong opinions on both sides without really even seeing him play. I love it.

[Blueheart05]

The Mets compared him to Beltran. I think the comparison was used here to accentuate his potential for diamond-in-the-rough status. I also don't see anything wrong with saying he has the potential to be better than he's shown in the Minors.

 

The Mets supposedly compared him to Beltran (although it was probably one overly zealous drunken scout and not the organization) and then somebody started this thread saying he's heard that before and that there is some sort of credence to that comparison. There is nothing to base that comparison on. Pagan can't hold Beltran's jock. He'll never come close to being as good as Beltran. Being a better major leaguer than minor leaguer is one thing. It wouldn't take much for Pagan to have better numbers in the majors, because his minor numbers weren't good. But talking about him being a diamond in the rough who turns into Beltran, or anything close to that is just unrealistic.

 

LOL, you are not understanding me. I'm not saying he's the next Beltran. My point has always been that he's a backup guy who might have the opportunity (on this team) to start. I think it's very realistic to say that he may be much better than his minor league numbers suggest. From what I understand, he's played though injuries the last few years. I really only started defending the guy when he was compared to McClain. I don't think that's fair. If we're going to do that, we shouldn't even waste time with Pie because he looks a lot like Corey Patterson...