FanGraphs Baseball

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Great signing for the Giants. The Giants excellent second half wasn’t due solely to Buster and Scutero, it seemed Pagan played a big role too.

    Comment by Hurtlockertwo — December 3, 2012 @ 4:54 pm

  2. The contract is a bit front-loaded:

    <blockquote cite="Andrew Baggarly ?@CSNBaggs

    Pagan breakdown: $5 million signing bonus and annual salaries of 7, 9, 9 and 10 million."

    As stated, the Giants are clearly in win-now mode. So this looks like a modest win for them, especially in view of their dire need for at least one FA outfielder.

    Comment by Samlet — December 3, 2012 @ 5:03 pm

  3. html fail, but you get the idea…

    Comment by Samlet — December 3, 2012 @ 5:04 pm

  4. Rowand was younger and better when he signed with the Giants. They better hope Pagan isnt Rowand 2.0

    Comment by Nik — December 3, 2012 @ 5:23 pm

  5. Random thought on Pagan vs Upton from Dave’s chat, where he mentions power generally gets paid more than other skills on a relative basis:

    Though Pagan displays decent power, I wonder if the power premium for a guy like Upton is actually an at-least-partially-analytically-supported idea, since the value wOBA/wRC+ assigns to OBP-related events is derived under the assumption that a certain amount of power is present in the game.

    In other words, of course ideally you want high OBP and high SLG from every guy in your lineup. However, if you can’t do that, for a lineup of a constant number of theoretical batting runs, it’s better from a run-scoring standpoint have a good mix of power and OBP than to rely largely on one or the other.

    Comment by ralph — December 3, 2012 @ 5:25 pm

  6. Rowand’s numbers were also inflated by playing in Philly while the Giants got to sample Pagan’s effectiveness in AT&T. Also, Pagan is signed at $20 less than Rowand was, which is not an insignificant amount of change.

    Number of years is a little scary, but everyone signing a decent free agent centerfielder was going to have to overpay in money or years. All things considered, the Giants came out great on this.

    Comment by Brian — December 3, 2012 @ 5:25 pm

  7. “$40 million over four years is paying him like he’s basically a two and a half win player (assuming $5.5 million per win and inflation).”

    Even if this is true, we have no reason to expect him to be worth 2.5 wins/year in 2016. Hell, we barely even have a reason to expect it in 2013. Just because he’s not Aubrey Huff doesn’t mean this contract is reasonable. There’s no way this is a better overall investment than Michael Bourn, and it’s even worse when you factor in that they could just stick Blanco in CF and add a new bat in LF. I’m blown away that anyone is arguing $40 million for Angel Pagan as being even remotely reasonable.

    Comment by Mr. Skeptical — December 3, 2012 @ 5:53 pm

  8. Also totally different players.

    Rowand also wasn’t the same player in SF that he had been earlier in his career. His K% was 17% in Chicago and Philly and averaged roughly 22% with San Francisco. That is a HUGE spike in K%. The fact he could no longer hit the slider dramatically killed his value. I hate to level accusations without proof, but Rowand’s numbers and the “era” suggest that he may have been enhanced earlier in his career and fell off immediately when testing started. Not only did his K-rate increase, but pretty much every facet of his game declined immediately, even if you account for the stadium differences. If SF had gotten the Rowand that played in Chicago and Philly, the contract wouldn’t have looked so bad.

    Pagan is a high contact guy and hits linedrives, which is much better for that ballpark. He is a better overall athlete than Rowand and as a result could and should age better. Rowand was a flyball hitter that K’d way too much.

    This was a solid signing. The Rowand deal was a gross overpay for a rebuilding franchise desperate to lure FA’s and trying to change the culture there after the funeral procession that was the end of Barry Bonds’ career.

    Comment by Larry Yocum — December 3, 2012 @ 5:57 pm

  9. What does “scratch” mean?

    Comment by Daniel — December 3, 2012 @ 5:57 pm

  10. Completely agree, I’m not big on Pagan and 40 mil for him is unreasonable. I respect the hell out of the Giants for some of the moves they’ve made, though.

    Comment by Steve — December 3, 2012 @ 6:04 pm

  11. He obviously assumed aging since $5.5M x 2.5 x 4 = $55M

    This is a guy that was worth ~$25M just last year, and somehow this is not even remotely reasonable?

    Comment by Justin — December 3, 2012 @ 6:11 pm

  12. That’s just the market though. Paying $10 million a year for a CF that will get you plus WAR is probably a better use of funds than paying a MR over $7-8 million a year. Baseball is flush with money right now and the Giants probably have a little bit extra to spend after that WS run.

    We have to really see what all the other CF go for before jumping to conclusions on whether it was a bad deal. What if Victorino signs for $50 million or Bourn gets $100 million. Neither would surprise me at this point. Even if this deal was a little high, it wasn’t absurd and probably what he was being offered from other clubs.

    Comment by Larry Yocum — December 3, 2012 @ 6:11 pm

  13. I’m blown away you don’t see it. Do a simple MARCEL on him and you get 3.3 wins. Age 3.3 wins .5 a season and inflate from $5m a win, and you get over $55 million in potential contract value. The only reason he was so bad in 2011 is because UZR gave him a double digit minus number on the season, the only time it’s done so in his career. So, he’s probably a scratch defender, and he’s got some stick, and put those two things in center field and you get two wins without trying too hard. Even at two wins, the contract isn’t terrible.

    Comment by Eno Sarris — December 3, 2012 @ 6:11 pm

  14. Average. Golfing term, means par.

    Comment by Eno Sarris — December 3, 2012 @ 6:11 pm

  15. I’ve been a big fan of Pagan for a while – at a price point. Eno as you well know on your Mets he was a mixed bag with the injuries and was sort of a polarizing figure. Been very happy with him since the trade, I would say his OF routes have some adventure but he makes up with speed and has the knack for the good highlight play from time to time.

    To differ, I’d say for the most part he’s a very good baserunner. His last 3 years SB/CS are: 37/9, 32/7, 29/7. The thing I love about him is he’s almost an automatic run scoring from 2nd on a base hit. After dealing with a bunch of galoots out there in the French Vanilla, that has been fun to watch. Also, the Giants aren’t known for their SB acumen, he was pleasantly consistent last year.

    Giants had to overpay a year to secure him from the Phils. I think most fans shrug their shoulders, cost of doing business. As long as he’s in CF he has a good chance to play up to and exceed WAR ratios. And on the intangibles front, its miles ahead of Shane Victorino.

    Comment by Shankbone — December 3, 2012 @ 6:14 pm

  16. WAR accounts for park factors.

    Comment by nik — December 3, 2012 @ 6:38 pm

  17. What exactly are the “intangibles” that are problematic with Victorino? (besides the fact that many non-Phillies fans hate him, which has precisely zero weight, since those fans will not abandon their teams if one signs him.)

    Comment by LTG — December 3, 2012 @ 6:38 pm

  18. Is this a meaning of this word you came up with on your own (“average”)? A scratch golfer is far from “average.” “Scratch” in golf means you play without a handicap, i.e. about a half a percent of all USGA golfers.

    Comment by Sophist — December 3, 2012 @ 6:56 pm

  19. sorry, you’re right. not par, but no handicap, my bad. A player that plays center field in the pros to a 0 UZR seems to be doing about the same thing as a scratch golfer if you ask me — same small pool, same high skill, same idea that he’s not really a plus or a negative within that small pool.

    Comment by Eno Sarris — December 3, 2012 @ 7:06 pm

  20. Victorino has done nothing except work his tail off on the baseball diamond for his entire career. FWIW, Victorino is 8 months older than Pagan, and has earned 27.2 career WAR, compared to Pagan’s 15.1

    I’m thinking, at the same price, some team may be quite happy with Shane.

    Comment by Dave S — December 3, 2012 @ 7:29 pm

  21. If you had taken this tack in your article rather than saying, “It beats the Huff signing,” the article might actually have been interesting.

    Comment by Baltar — December 3, 2012 @ 7:40 pm

  22. I’m thinking that Shane Victorino is very liable to wind up with less than four years, and a lower (or at least close to equal) $/year.

    Did the Giants find out if Victorino would go for, say, three years, $25-$30 mil? Seems like that would be a good piece of information to have right there. Hell, Victorino might’ve been willing to sign with the Giants for something like two years, $20-$22 mil.

    Seems to me that we’re seeing what we often see from teams during the offseason following a championship run: overpays for role players. Angel Pagan’s a solid player, but I don’t remember the Giants having to give up much in order to acquire him. I agree with some other dudes (see above); $40 mil for Angel Pagan seems like a lot.

    Comment by Robbie G. — December 3, 2012 @ 7:44 pm

  23. If I’d aged Pagan and done a paragraph long work up of his contract, it would have been more interesting? Okay. I covered his power, his defense, and his age. I didn’t show my work, but I quoted it when I said that they are paying him like he’s a 2.5 win player, so all of this, that I’ve said here, it’s in the article above.

    Comment by Eno Sarris — December 3, 2012 @ 7:45 pm

  24. I have this contract as a huge win for the Giants. As Eno noted, given current reasonable assumptions the breakeven point is for Pagan to be a 2.5 win player next year and declining. But I have him projected for 3 wins, making this contract a $11M win. Unreasonable yes, but in the other direction from what you think.

    Comment by BillWallace — December 3, 2012 @ 7:45 pm

  25. “Pagan plays a premium up-the-middle defensive position at least to a scratch level, . . .

    . . . His routes in center field leave him short of scratch defensively in center field, and sometimes he makes mistakes on the basepaths.”

    So is he or isn’t he scratch?

    Comment by Whole Camels — December 3, 2012 @ 8:27 pm

  26. Fixed ‘at least’ because I’d say he’s a true talent -.5 or something. He messes things up from time to time, but he’s athletic enough to make up for it. And I don’t want to weight my eye test too much, so ‘basically scratch’ and ‘just short of scratch’ make sense to me.

    Comment by Eno Sarris — December 3, 2012 @ 8:29 pm

  27. Victorino was pretty terrible last year. And at his age you have to at least account for the risk that its the begining of a significant decline in physical ability and production. I’d rather have Pagan at 4/40 than Victorino at 2/22. I bet the Giant’s scouts tell them the same thing.

    If GM’s are making decisions on 30+ year old talent based on career aggregation rather than recent direct observation that is a recipe for some regretable acquisitions.

    Comment by Jason — December 3, 2012 @ 10:48 pm

  28. Well, Victorino is sitting on 1076 Games and 4295 PAs, Pagan is at 695 and 2653. That makes up part of the career WAR equation.

    Victorino is looking at 3 years and apparently a 4 year offer, if you’re believing the rumor mill today. I doubt he’s getting a 2/20MM.

    They are pretty similar players, I’ll agree with that. Pagan has better splits against RHP, and he has a much better arm. The intangibles was my joke about Giants fans not liking him due to his playing style. Victorino has neutral splits, but its worth noting that Pagan has had to play in Citi and AT&T for his home splits, Shane has done well at Citizens, but equally well on the road.

    Comment by Shankbone — December 3, 2012 @ 11:34 pm

  29. Or maybe Rowand just ran face first into too many walls. I don’t know if he got concussions when that happened, but guys who smash their head into things (or get beaned) often become substantially worse hitters.

    Comment by ZenMadman — December 3, 2012 @ 11:35 pm

  30. I like it when a writer invents a slang word then use it three times in one short article in the vain hopes it catches on. It’s wompingly grutontic.

    Comment by bc — December 4, 2012 @ 12:24 am

  31. Um, as awesome as Eno is, he’s not the first to use “scratch” as a synonym for average. Mayhap you should expose yourself to more writing before accusing others of inventing words you just haven’t seen before.

    Comment by bsally — December 4, 2012 @ 12:56 am

  32. To Shankbone…
    “Pagan has better splits against RHP, and he has a much better arm.”
    It sure looks like Pagan has notably weaker throwing arm to me but do count me as a Pagan fan.

    Comment by algionfriddo — December 4, 2012 @ 1:14 am

  33. Couldn’t agree more. This is not a good investment for SF, as Michael Bourn is the best overall center fielder on the market currently. Personally, I would have been ok with signing Swisher and putting him in left field, and moving Blanco to CF.

    As far as I am concerned, this is Huff 2.0. Am I the only one who remembers the post 2010 hangover that gave Huff daddy $22 million?

    Comment by Coach Fish — December 4, 2012 @ 1:22 am

  34. Swisher is likely to cost twice as much as Pagan and Blanco is not a good hitter.

    Sure, Bourne is a much better defensive CF than Pagan, but Pagan is a significantly better hitter. And just like Swisher, Bourne is going to cost more, both in years and salary.

    I mean Eno just did all the math for you guys. So what part of it are you not understanding?

    Comment by cs3 — December 4, 2012 @ 1:41 am

  35. Guys, its not really hard to understand is it? “Scratch” in this context simple means “of similar ability to ones peer group”.

    Some people find the stupidest things to whine about, and then actually thing that other people will think they sound intelligent. Amazing!

    Comment by cs3 — December 4, 2012 @ 1:46 am

  36. Crowdsourcing had pagan at 3 for 30M. BJ upton at 4 for 52m and Bourn 5 for 70m. We know Upton got 5 for 75m and Bourn’s asking price is higher. I would rather have Pagan than Bourn at those prices.

    Comment by WillieMaysField — December 4, 2012 @ 2:22 am

  37. Logic fail? How does the fact that Bourn is the best available CF mean that this is a bad deal for the Giants?

    Comment by Simon — December 4, 2012 @ 6:22 am

  38. Is it $5.5MM/WAR these days? This is the first I’ve seen that high, and had been going with $5MM/WAR so far this offseason. Is there something I missed that I could possibly be linked towards?

    Comment by Grady — December 4, 2012 @ 9:17 am

  39. Deal looks good to me. No reason he can’t average 3 WAR/season considering he was over 5 last year.

    5.5 M/WAR? How about 6, 6.5? 7 by the end of the deal. Funny money. “TV Money”.

    Comment by Foothills Ryan — December 4, 2012 @ 9:50 am

  40. I’ve been using $5.5/war and it seems to be fitting most contracts pretty well. It can never be more than an estimate of course but we’ll have more confidence later in the offseason with more signings. It does make sense that it would have gone up from the $5 that was used in the previous 2 offseasons.

    Comment by BillWallace — December 4, 2012 @ 9:55 am

  41. Among the guys who have already signed:

    The Affeldt, Guthrie, Iwakuma, Napoli and Upton deals would have me thinking $5.5M/win or higher…

    But the Broxton, Pagan, Hunter, Kuroda, Martin, Ortiz, Pettitte deals pull it back towards $5M.

    I’ve been using $5M for 2012 and tacking on 5% for 2013 [$5.25M] until something indicates differently :)

    Comment by Eric R — December 4, 2012 @ 10:01 am

  42. Buy a dictionary. You still don’t know what arbitrary means after I pointed this out to your repeatedly.

    Comment by dafuq — December 4, 2012 @ 10:25 am

  43. I feel like the Huff and Pagan deal don’t belong in the same conversation. Huff had one skill which was the hit tool and when that went he was basically useless. Below avg runner and below avg defense no matter what pos he played.

    Pagan shows some power, speed and atleast avg defense at a premium position. And I don’t feel Blanco hits enough to warrant a starting job. So sure you’d rather have Pagan at 3 yrs but seems like Philly would have given him 4.

    Comment by the Dude — December 4, 2012 @ 11:26 am

  44. I understand the cost surrounding Swisher, but the fact remains Pagan at 4 years is ridiculous for SF. Pagan and Bourn may have similar numbers from the 2012 season, but Bourn’s defense is better hands down. Bourn also beats Pagan in base running and runs created.

    Additionally, SF drafted Gary Brown to be their CF of the future. Heading into 2013, Brown will most likely start in Fresno (AAA), but is now blocked with the addition of Pagan and his four year contract.

    I understand the numbers as written above. What I don’t understand is the reasoning in signing Pagan to a four year deal, with Gary Brown 1-2 years away from the show.

    Comment by Coach Fish — December 4, 2012 @ 12:07 pm

  45. Plus the age difference between Huff and Pagan.

    Pagan will be finishing up his contract at roughly the same age that the Giants signed Huff at. That is a HUGE difference, especially when talking about those decline years of 33-36. Huff was lucky to post one final solid season and the Giants should have known it. Pagan still has good years left.

    Signing Bourn was NOT an option. Committing $90-$100 million to him makes it less likely you sign Posey to a big deal when his abitration is up. A contract like Pagan’s won’t interfere with that.

    Comment by Larry Yocum — December 4, 2012 @ 12:46 pm

  46. I’d say it’s a slight overpay. Depends on whether he can hit righthanded like he did last year. In certain seasons, he’s been a pretty poor hitter from the right side, which limits his value. But, in that park, he going to continue to rack up the triples.

    Comment by Dave G. — December 4, 2012 @ 1:12 pm

  47. That’s a good point regarding the cost to sign Bourn. I had failed to consider he was asking between $90-100 million.

    I think everyone will agree signing Posey longterm is vital to SF’s longterm success.

    Comment by Coach Fish — December 4, 2012 @ 1:15 pm

  48. Ridiculous prices, but that’s what you get in free agency.

    Yes, Pagan has had two nice seasons with @ 5 WAR, 2010 and 2012. Those also happen to be his only two health seasons that I could see, and he’s turning 31.

    Baserunning accounts for a good amount of his WAR, that is likely to decline. Injury concerns must be factored in, a decline in baserunning and quite possibly fielding. He could be a bargain, or it could go sideways.

    Unbelievable the prices though, maybe hamilton will get the 175mil he’s looking for, if upton can get 5/75, why not 6/175 for hamilton? at least 150mil. absurd.

    Comment by Bill — December 4, 2012 @ 1:19 pm

  49. What puzzles me are Giants fans who think this will somehow impede Brown. Pagan can move to LF when Brown is ready to take over, at a time when Pagan’s speed will be in decline. And the question on Bourn @ 80M or so vs. Pagan @ 40M or so is an easy call for me – not enough difference between the two to warrant that overpay on Bourn. Yes there is a chance there is 10M of dead money in year 4, but it’s not a bad risk, and I believe Philly had offered 4 years already, just all things being roughly equal, Pagan wanted to come back to SF.

    Comment by Qksilver — December 4, 2012 @ 2:03 pm

  50. Buy a copy of “How not to be a raging douche.” I think there’s a chapter on refraining from stomping up and down like a spoiled child over a minor grammar/usage quibble when the thrust of the article is crystal clear.

    Enjoy, and happy holidays.

    Comment by Idea Guy — December 4, 2012 @ 2:39 pm

  51. Coach Fish-
    You said ” Bourn also beats Pagan in base running and runs created. ”

    What are you talking about? Do you even try to base your assertions on fact?
    Pagans career wRC+ is 104 and he has posted seasons as high as 121, 113, and 108.
    Born has a career wRC+ of just 92, and he has not had even a single season in which his wRC was above Pagans career average. His highest season total is only 104.

    So you are actually flat out wrong

    Comment by cs3 — December 4, 2012 @ 4:38 pm

  52. cs3:

    I used the 2012 RC data from the Bill James Handbook (2013). I looked at the 2012 RC numbers, along with the career RC numbers, both of which favor Bourn.

    I’ll be the first to admit I am still new to Sabermetrics, and I was unaware Fangraph’s improved Bill James’ RC with wRC. So, thanks for pointing that out.

    Comment by bfisher918 — December 4, 2012 @ 7:21 pm

  53. Victarino’s $39 mm over 3 years makes Sabean look like a genius. There’s your best available comp (which is how this all works). Anyone who says the Giants overpaid is officially foolish.

    Comment by Vern the Destroyer — December 4, 2012 @ 8:20 pm

  54. Coach Fish
    Sorry I came across as a dick. I apparently became a little too invested this topic.

    Comment by cs3 — December 4, 2012 @ 11:09 pm

  55. Well Shane is called the “Flying Hawaiian”. Many may think it’s because of his speed, but I prefer it’s because he always carries a huge bag of sweet Maui herb with him.

    Comment by ValueArb — December 5, 2012 @ 7:20 pm

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Close this window.

0.296 Powered by WordPress