This guy has become a bit of a regular, even though he can’t figure out how to reply to an email (he just sends responses to my ESPN mailbag instead). He first popped up when I ripped the Mets’ side of the Milledge trade, being sort of obnoxious until I pointed out how specious his arguments were, then becoming, well, like this:
Frank D’Elia (REDACTED) 2008-02-02 10:43:00.0
Hey genius, what do you think about the Schneider deal now? You think perhaps a seasoned backstop would be perfect for Johann and a guy like Pelfrey? You are clueless. Perhaps that’s why Toronto let you go. I hear their mailroom is much more efficient. Btw, no need to respond. I won’t read it anyway. You’re a pompous ass.
Wow, he sure told me. Nothing like the false claim that I was let go by Toronto – or that I had a menial job – to boost an argument.
Well Keith– I believe you got SERVED! The Schneider deal does look fantastic now! Genius move for O-mah.
Its just hard to believe some times, you know? Where do people come up with these things they say? Keep giving us the straight scoop, sir!
Hey Keith – Saw a post of yours on ESPN when you mentioned the benefits of the Santana trade, and one of your reasons was that it pushed Maine and Perez back in the rotation, where they “won’t have to face other teams’ #1 starters” (paraphrasing here).
I’ve always considered that a myth, because injuries and off-days (especially so many in April) throw off the rotations so that #1s don’t match up against each other any more often than #1s match up with #5s.
I do see this written a lot, but usually by some fantasy baseball “expert” writing to people playing in beginner-level Yahoo leagues, and immediately ignore it (and subsequently discount anything written by the author again).
But seeing you write it makes me think twice – do you believe this is true? Do you know of any studies or research done to see just how often rotations’ like-numbered starters face off against each other?
Thanks.
Brett: That’s not quite what I said – I was asked a question to that effect on TV (today, actually, and I assume that’s what you meant), and I was trying to divert the answer to the more critical, tangible benefit of having the bullpen throw maybe 50 fewer innings than it had to in 2007. I don’t think that the thing about having your starters line up less often against #1s is a particularly big deal, but again, I was asked a question and had to answer it in an appropriate manner.
If it could even be measured, I would be shocked if the net benefit of pushing starters back into more appropriate roles was worth as much as a win a year.
Keith
Keith,
Isn’t the Schneider deal even worse now? The Mets got rid of their best option for right field in the trade, and in return they got a platoon player (Church should only play against lefties) and a catcher who, in 2007, posted an OPS+ of 77 and only threw out 31.2% of basestealers. You’re telling me they couldn’t have gotten a guy of Schneider’s caliber somewhere else, or is that .323 OBP too appealing to pass up?
Tom, I agree with you. I am totally perplexed why they dealt for Schneider and Church.
I was hoping they would have signed Milton Bradley or Kenny Lofton. It seems like Schneider is below replacement level for a catcher, couldn’t the NYM have picked up pretty much any FA C and done just as well?
I remember the arguments after the Milledge deal. Mets fans, who for the last few years claimed Milledge was going to be unbelievable, immediately started screaming that he was trash and Church was an up-and-coming young OF and Schneider was a defensive star. After we worked through the fact that Church is going to be 30, and Schneider is barely passable defensively (and makes a ton of cash), it got pretty boring. Similar arguments were made of what a “steal” the Mets got with Estrada, who they non-tendered soon after. Either way, Milledge would’ve been a lot better option than Church and whoever in RF. Mets lineup is solid, but is pretty thin at the bottom (Chavez, Church, Schneider, Castillo-prob hit 2), and who knows if Delgado will produce or Alou will stay healthy. Their staff looks a lot better all of a sudden though.
Lots of anger from Frank though. Internet bullying, it’s all the rage.
I think the only way the Milledge deal could of looked good is if Church was included in the Santana package. Now it just looks like crap.
Keith – actually it from the beginning of an ESPN insider article called “Santana makes Mets an NL favorite”.
The free part ended with “Two, he pushes everyone in the rotation back into a more suitable spot. Pelfrey now has to “win” a starting role in spring training, which, given the work he still needs to do, is not a bad situation. Oliver Perez and John Maine won’t line up quite as often against opposing No. 1 and 2 starters.”
I agree with the Pelfrey part, but like you said, think the 2nd isn’t worth anything. I don’t know if it’s true, and even if it was, then that would mean that the Mets’ 5th starter would be matched up with other teams’ #1 starters (and other similar mismatches), effectively negating the advantage.
Anyway, no big deal.
Jim, the Mets did get a steal with Estrada for the sole reason that they got rid of Guillermo Mota. That should give them an extra win or two right there.
However that trade works out, the Mets mishandled Milledge as an asset.
Tom,
I agree with that part. At the time though I got stuck in a horrible discussion with a couple mets fans about Estrada’s potential to be an impact player and how the mets swindled the brewers. it was pretty obvious they were going to non-tender him, and even if they didn’t, he is a liability defensively and is a singles hitter. The Nats will love him.