I'd do this in a heartbeat. Crisp has a better track record and gold glove defense. This spring for Pagan is a fluke.
I'm not sure you can say Crisp has a better track record - longer, but not that great. He was okay in 2004/2005, but has been horrible at the plate in the last couple of years (and was even worse in the 2007 postseason). He's a good fielder in terms of range, although his arm isn't all that great, I believe. I admit to not knowing enough about Pagan to be able to say if this spring is a fluke, or if he's just a late bloomer.
Boston Globe says both teams are now denying it. Ed Coleman is one of the worst reporters I've ever seen.
Honestly, I don't think the deal made sense for either team. Crisp is the better player, but he's making significantly more expensive nor does he truly solve the Mets' two biggest issues (guy who is strong against lefties and a backup who can also play 1B). The upgrade at the fourth OF position (Crisp vs Endy and Pagan) is no where near enough IMO to justify the extra cost. For Boston, as good as Ellsbury played in October, is it really wise to throw away the safety net behind him (Crisp)? They clearly lose on talent and deal Crisp is quite a risk when you add in the health issue of Manny and Drew.
