Mets Looking At Nationals’ Josh Willingham

18 Comments + Add Comment

• Bayonne Mets Fan December 6, 2009 at 3:06 pm

  Pagan might be one of the guys needed to get him.
  • Devin December 6, 2009 at 3:56 pm

    i like Willingham a lot. But I’d rather move Parnell, Murphy or F-Mart before I move Pagan. Pagan is a solid insurance policy as the 4th outfielder as last season proved. I wouldn’t be so quick to move him, and I’d consider the trade a lateral move if they did, and not necessarily an upgrade.
    • Bayonne Mets Fan December 6, 2009 at 4:14 pm

      You’re misunderstanding my point,

      It’s not a matter of who WE want to give up, it’s more of a matter of who THEY want from us. I’m saying if The Nationals want Angel Pagan included in order to make the deal, the Mets are going to have to make a decision.

      You can’t decide who YOU want to give up. That’s not how trades work. They have who we want more than us having what they want.
      • Devin December 6, 2009 at 4:25 pm

        I see your point. Don’t think I’d do it then. Would you?
• Anthony December 6, 2009 at 3:48 pm

  Parnell maybe? But Willingham is not a good defensive LF either, u can make the case he is as bad as Burrell.
  • LongTimeFan December 6, 2009 at 5:58 pm

    Josh’s D has definitely improved the past few years and is far better than Burrell. I noticed the changes last year and was further bolstered by the guys in the booth mentioning his improvement. He seems far more comfortable there and moves with far greater ease.
• GravediggerHebner December 6, 2009 at 3:53 pm

  Willingham is intriguing. I worry a bit about his back problems, but 3 seasons over 20 HR and a career OPS of .840 is nothing the Mets should dismiss. As long as Pagan remained in the fold as caddy as you suggest Hojo, I like the idea.
  • Bayonne Mets Fan December 6, 2009 at 4:16 pm

    Again,

    The Nationals may want Pagan as part of the deal.
    • GravediggerHebner December 6, 2009 at 4:38 pm

      Understood. I thought it was implied by my statement of “if Pagan remained…I like the idea,” that if Pagan doesn’t remain, I don’t like the idea. I apologize for the lack of clarity.
• oldtimer December 6, 2009 at 3:58 pm

  Can he play 1B? Put him on first and get Holliday or a guy that can play the big LF.
• Bob L December 6, 2009 at 4:27 pm

  i like the rumor, but i think David DeJesus of KC a better fit: slightly younger, a great fielder, solid hitter, better on avg than Willingham, fewer homers, but 9 triples and 71 rbi’s.
  This is Pete M’s original idea. i love it. KC needs a speedy CF and Pagan was mentioned as on their radar.
  And beauty of this is that KC needs a CF, a setup guy (so do we!), catching depth, a ‘lefty’.
  Seems to me many of their needs match up with some of what Mets could trade. Plus, as a small mkt team, they’re always looking to shed payroll. They may be dangling Callaspo, 2B, in a trade, and perhaps Meche or Bannister also available.
  Callaspo has some ‘D’ issues, but maybe Pagan, Pelfrey, Stokes for DeJesus and Bannister or Meche. Oh, DeJesus is from Brooklyn….doesn’t turn 31 until a year from now.
  • Bob L December 6, 2009 at 4:31 pm

    Oops, i forgot to include Santos in our package for DeJesus and Bannister or Pagan. Heck, i bet the Royals trade DeJesus, Bannister and Meche for Pagan, Pelfrey, Stokes, and Santos…
• jdon December 6, 2009 at 5:39 pm

  I would trade Angel Pagan in a heartbeat. He is the dumbest player in baseball. At 28, he isn’t getting any smarter. If teams like him, let’s talk. The mets are a fairly dumb team without Paganl, as last season showed. I am all for relieving ourselves of some of the stupidity. I do not put much stock in stats from a season that might be categorized as one long September call-up.
  • LongTimeFan December 6, 2009 at 6:06 pm

    Pagan has made his share of bonehead mental errors but I have no reason to believe he’ll won’t work his way through them. He doesn’t have a lot of major league experience but does have a lot of talent, and excellent athleticism. I hope we keep him. I think he’s one of the best 4th outfielders a team can have to replace a DL’d player, especially a CF.

    He needs to refine his game both physically and mentally, as well as stay healthy, and in so doing, will become good CF starter material even for a good team, and a very valuable leadoff/2-hitter.
• Bob L December 6, 2009 at 6:12 pm

  i don’t disagree on Pagan, but they want him (apparently) and they want to shed payroll…so i say, let’s talk….
• Des December 6, 2009 at 8:28 pm

  Sign Delgado and trade him even-up for Willingham !!! He he he.

  After the coming season, Omar would look like a genius (if he still had a job!)
• Lisa P. December 6, 2009 at 8:49 pm

  Okay that just freaked me out. When I first glance at that photo, I thought it was David Wright in a Nats uniform. Don’t freak me out like that! I had no idea this guy looked so much a like, and even down to his batting stance.
• Peanuts and CrackerLINKS: Take Red Sox Shrimp Off Barbie | 7th Inning Stache, an MLB blog December 7, 2009 at 6:58 am

  [...] Yet the Mets focusing on Nationals LF Josh Willingham is a positive development? [mets MERIZED online] [...]