RichHillIsABeast

wow. how can pagan be said to have "done his time" in the minors yet still be considered an unknown? he had 2500 mediocre at best minor league ab's...i think it was pretty clear what he brought to the table (not much). Pagan spent 6 years in the minors. That's "doing your time." He never made it to the show, meaning it was an unknown how he'd perform at the ML level. That's all I meant by calling him an "unknown." actually a guy's minor league numbers can be a pretty good indicator of what type of major league player he'll be. he was quite "known". and what a surprise...pagan's big league numbers were right in line with his career minor league numbers...terrible. Yes, they can be a pretty good indicator, but they're not the ultimate say on what a player will do. Minor league do not always translate. Would you like me to list the myriad examples of this? There are tons of players who can rip apart the minors but can't get it done in the majors. Likewise there are some players that aren't world burners in the minors who can contribute at the ML level. Pagan is one of those, IMO. Sorry I don't have a stat to show that.

It's only fair? Says who? The reason for discarding the worst month is not b/c it is the worst month. It is b/c it was his first month in the bigs. All I'm doing is ignoring his initial ML action, not throwing out months based on performance. When we talk about Murton do we throw out his one horrible month and his best month when thinking about the numbers he puts up next season? Nope. People tend to look at his 2nd half or just flat out ignore his horrible June as he was "making adjustments" or "Dusty forced free swinging on him." Funny how Murton gets that break from a lot of NSBB posters, but Pagan does not.

.306 .394 .700 Pretty bad. Considering it was his first stint in the bigs? Take out his first month and those stats look a lot better. Pagan did pretty darn well. I'm going to enjoy seeing Angel on the 2007 Cubs roster. You can't just arbitrarily take away a period of time and pretend it never happened. .251 .310 .360 His ZIPS projection. If you're going to enjoy that, I'm going to guess you also enjoy poking yourself in the eye with sharp objects. ZIPS - the Word of the baseball gods. [/sarcasm]

He had 1 2HR game in July, take that away and he hit .261/.333/.370. I don't like just "taking away" stats for players, but it's not as ridiculous as you eliminating his 3 worst months. Pagan's overall number sucked. Pagan's career has sucked. Pagan will always suck. He had a nice game. He might have a couple more in his career. But his numbers will suck when all is said and done. Are you kidding me? April was HIS FIRST MONTH IN THE MAJORS. How many stud prospects suck it up in their first month in the bigs? So many adjustments are being made it's pretty crappy to judge a player's overall worth by the very first ML action he sees. I didn't take away 3 months. I said take away the 1st (April) b/c it was his first few ABs in the bigs. Take away the 1 AB in June b/c it is statistically insignificant (if we're going by month). That is in no way, shape, or form comparable to taking away a couple HR arbitrarily. There are reasons to ignore certain stats. Statistical insight is a great thing. Arbitrary exclusion is bogus reasoning.

.306 .394 .700 Pretty bad. Considering it was his first stint in the bigs? Take out his first month and those stats look a lot better. Pagan did pretty darn well. I'm going to enjoy seeing Angel on the 2007 Cubs roster.

Pagan by month: April: .263/.263/.316/.579 (19 AB) May: injured June: .250/.250/.300/.550 (1 AB) July: .294/.357/.510/.867 (51 AB) Aug.: .279/.324/.457/.781 (58 AB) Sept.: .249/.308/.396/.704 (40 AB) Pagan performed just fine apart from his 1st month in the bigs (how many players do the same their first time in the bigs?). 19 ABs shouldn't condemn him. Then he was injured for all of May and most of June. He tore it up in July and did just fine in August. He put up a .700 OPS in September. One bad month (40 AB) after his initial intro to the bigs. Big whoop. Pagan's numbers aren't as bad as some of you are making out. Pagan has great speed, some power, and can field his position. He's not a bad bench option when he's making the league minimum.

He had a fluke 2 HR game, and other than that he was predictably awful. The more than 1 HR for every 10 AB he hit in ST suggests otherwise. It doesn't suggest a thing. ST stats are meaningless. That's your opinion. I disagree.

Yes, with the pitchers jogging in the outfield, the manager signing autographs, and 1/2 the ball club there I could see how the pressure could get to a kid. Every game I've evered played whether it be a playoff game or beer league softball I've tried my damnedest. I really don't think guys who've played the game their entire life and are getting paid are any different. Players know they are auditioning for a job. You don't get infinite chances in a career. That's pressure. Some guys step it up in pressure situations and others wilt. It's one thing to put up numbers in unstressful minor league games, when it's just a game. It's another when your whole career and all the work you've put in are on the line. Your career is not on the line in spring training. You are grossly overvaluing spring training. If you are a fringe prospect, or career minor leaguer, yes, your chance at the show is on the line. Not everyone is a top prospect. Organizations don't make holes for the likes of Angel Pagan. I'm not overvaluing the importance of ST to players who fight for bench spots.

He had a fluke 2 HR game, and other than that he was predictably awful. The more than 1 HR for every 10 AB he hit in ST suggests otherwise.

Yes, with the pitchers jogging in the outfield, the manager signing autographs, and 1/2 the ball club there I could see how the pressure could get to a kid. Every game I've evered played whether it be a playoff game or beer league softball I've tried my damnedest. I really don't think guys who've played the game their entire life and are getting paid are any different. Players know they are auditioning for a job. You don't get infinite chances in a career. That's pressure. Some guys step it up in pressure situations and others wilt. It's one thing to put up numbers in unstressful minor league games, when it's just a game. It's another when your whole career and all the work you've put in are on the line.

wow. how can pagan be said to have "done his time" in the minors yet still be considered an unknown? he had 2500 mediocre at best minor league ab's...i think it was pretty clear what he brought to the table (not much). Pagan spent 6 years in the minors. That's "doing your time." He never made it to the show, meaning it was an unknown how he'd perform at the ML level. That's all I meant by calling him an "unknown." It's not like he was a career AAAA player. He hit 5 HR in 170 AB. That certainly wasn't a clear expectation from his minor league numbers. I was pleasantly surprised by that.

Not so much aimed at the poster, but this statement is what kills me. "When it counts" is the hundreds of regular season atbats (whether in the majors or minors). Judging a player's value by a handful of atbats during an arbitrary period of time is stupid. Neifi Perez was awesome when he joined the Cubs in 2004, but he had a history of sucking that indicated that he would continue to suck. It's also playing the hot hand, as well as rewarding recent performance. It's not an "arbitrary period of time." Players know what is at stake and what they can get if they perform. It's a litmus test for higher pressure situations. Everyone knows when ST is. It's not some arbitrary period of time in a player's career.

So you think it's silly but it's not bad? Or did you change your mind in the middle of your post? A 700 OPS off the bench IS bad. Pagan took up a roster spot that could have been filled by someone who could actually contribute. I didn't change my mind in the middle of my post. The overall policy of determining roster spots in ST is silly. I don't have a problem with BENCH spots going to deserving players in ST as it has limited impact. I do have a problem with SP and RP being determined by ST. A 700 OPS off the bench doesn't cost you that many runs. I think it's worth it for the psychological impact on your farm system. If you perform, you will get a spot in the show. Feel free to disagree with that.

Clemens is just getting started. After he signs with Boston for one year, he's going to want to stay in the AL because of the challenge. But he'll want to go home and pitch in Texas. So he'll go to the Rangers for a year. Then he decides to retire...or not. So instead he goes back to the Yankees for a year to see if he can go out on top. The Yanks win the World Series. Clemens retires again, but decides maybe he should win a World Series back in the National League, with Houston. Repeat the process about 20 times and he'll finally retire for good. Clemens is a freaking merc.

Good news. I really want to see this guy pitch, even if it's not for the Cubs.

Hendry subcribes to the "earn it" policy. Some guys don't get it done in ST, others step up. Pagan stepped it up bigtime. If what you say is true, Hendry is a worse GM than anybody realizes. Spring training is about the absolute worst time to be making decision about your 25 man roster. A great amount of the time teams are playing people who won't even make the 25 man roster and might never make it for even a cup of coffee in MLB, not to mention the limited number of ABs in the six weeks of get in shape, golf after the game, don't go on road trips, split squads, get in to get some work done baseball. Shoot, I've already mentioned some of the myraid problems with evaluating talent during ST. One last thing, if what you say is true Brandon Sing should have been on the 25 man roster out of spring trainging last year. And the year before "Die Hard" what's his name should have been on the 25 man roster. I think it's silly too, but that's the philosophy of a lot of organizations. Sing didn't do his time in the minors like Pagan and other did. Sing probably didn't have the scouts saying he was ready. You have to be "ready" and put out. Having the necessary qualities your ballclub is seeking is important (Pagan got the edge b/c Dusty/Hendry were high on speed at the time). Die-Hard didn't have that edge and really doesn't project to get it done at the ML level. Pagan was an unknown. Hill was ready last ST and didn't put out. It cost him a slot in the rotation. :evil: Having a guy make the roster as a bench option out of ST isn't bad. It has a limited production impact on your team (may even be a positive in terms of salary). It's an incentive for those who work hard in the minors and can step it up when it counts. I don't have a problem with it. I do have a problem with determining the starting rotation (other than health reasons) or pen out of ST. Wuertz and Hill both should have been on the opening day roster going off performance.

with coal in his stocking.

Hendry subcribes to the "earn it" policy. Some guys don't get it done in ST, others step up. Pagan stepped it up bigtime. IIRC, the Cubs players were rumored to have really lobbied for Pagan to make the roster. Let's blame the Cubs players for Pagan. Personally, I like Pagan. Good speed. His injury kept him from beating out a lot of infield singles (raising his BA). His defense is fine. His speed makes up for a lot of his indecisions, giving him average range. That's fine. You can learn to read the ball better. You can't learn speed. Pagan showed a some pop last season, which scouts long predicted even if the numbers weren't there. He'd out OPS Pierre in a full season, but that's not saying much. I'd rather have Church, but Pagan in CF is a better option than dealing Jock and putting some runtown vet out there for several million. Pagan isn't high on my list for the CF job, but he's better than some options out there.

I like Pagan. :oops:

Other than the reason DeRosa came to Chicago was to start at 2B. When a 28-year-old .285/.361/.448 career good defensive second baseman comes on the market, you make sure you revise any plans you may once have had for Mark DeRosa-types. Alternatively, you could do yourself a favour and have made better plans for Mark DeRosa-types in the first place, plans not involving a starting job and a three year commitment. Hendry would have to go back on his word to make that happen. DeRosa came to start at 2B. It's not as simple as just making a decision based on numbers. Hendry would kill his relations with DeRosa, DeRosa's agent, and harm his image with future potential FAs. I wouldn't have locked in on DeRosa with Giles on the market (which was rumored at the beginning of the offseason). Unfortunately the decision has been made. There is no going back. Maybe if Hendry sat down with him and said, "Hey...listen....Giles is better than you...but you're better than Izturis....how's SS sound?", it would all work out. I don't see DeRosa as being able to handle SS for a full season. As a substitute like he was in the past? Sure. His defense wouldn't cost you that many runs. As a fulltime starter he's going to let a lot of balls by him as his range is nothing great. We may have a flyball staff for the most part, but he's still going to cost us a very significant amount of runs compared to Izturis. Will DeRosa make up for it offensively? I think he will, but if he doesn't we're in a world of hurt.

Other than the reason DeRosa came to Chicago was to start at 2B. When a 28-year-old .285/.361/.448 career good defensive second baseman comes on the market, you make sure you revise any plans you may once have had for Mark DeRosa-types. Alternatively, you could do yourself a favour and have made better plans for Mark DeRosa-types in the first place, plans not involving a starting job and a three year commitment. Hendry would have to go back on his word to make that happen. DeRosa came to start at 2B. It's not as simple as just making a decision based on numbers. Hendry would kill his relations with DeRosa, DeRosa's agent, and harm his image with future potential FAs. I wouldn't have locked in on DeRosa with Giles on the market (which was rumored at the beginning of the offseason). Unfortunately the decision has been made. There is no going back.

Other than the reason DeRosa came to Chicago was to start at 2B. We're not getting Giles. I really, really want us to. He was my pick for 2B at the start of the offseason. It's not going to happen. :(

Does that mean you'll do two shots for a pick six? It falls under your rules, as far as I can tell. :lol:

Giles please. We need a #2 hitter, and he's among the best.

Church please. Let's not go dumpster diving for a centerfielder.