The Mailbag of Malcontent, Vol. 3.

Sweet!

(214) keith law’s arch enemy 2008-01-28 14:49:00.0
keith law is biased comments are really annoying. I dont understand how you still have a job, I guess its because ESPN is east coast biased. You have no eye for talent or you have no idea what you’re talking about half of the time.

Best part? I haven’t written anything for the site in ten days, making this critic slow AND stupid!

Comments

  1. So jealous. I’ve always wanted an arch enemy. I’d even settle for a mid-grade nemesis.

    Not sure how far you are into Watchmen, Keith, so be careful: you never know who your enemies really are . . .

  2. Is Toronto technically part of the East Coast Bias? I know it’s on the eastern part of North America, but when I think East Coast Bias, I just think New York/Boston.

  3. wow, the ownage of KLaw continues!

    You need to come up with a form letter to reply to each email like this, thanking the e-mailer graciously for the feedback.

  4. I am a fan of the ESPN content (especially the insider content such as Neyer, Hollinger (NBA), and you); however the comments section blows my mind the lack of any creative thought or intelligent feedback or dicussion topics. This is really apparent when you visit other sites like Baseball Analysts or Baseball Think Factory to name a few.

  5. I put the odds that comment was the work of Steve Phillips at 2-1. He doesn’t like you, Keith, which makes me like you that much more.

  6. Yes, because SOME GUY who accuses you of a bias knows so much more. Its probably a Yankees fan who’s bitter that you don’t think Joba will go 21-4 with a 1.35 ERA next year.

  7. The Arch Enemy needs a speech writer. Or, perhaps, to write in his native language.

  8. Just came back from lunch and found a John Adams dollar and a Massachusetts quarter in my change. Damn east coast bias.

  9. I think the best part is the grammar…you should have ripped this apart!

    “keith law is biased comments are really annoying”
    (Keith is a proper noun and should be in caps!)

    Not to mention the run on sentance…but hey, he did throw a compliment in there:

    “You have no eye for talent or you have no idea what you’re talking about half of the time.”

    So, half the time you have an eye for talent, and the other half you know what you are talking about…well done 😉

  10. The sun rises earlier in Boston. DAMN YOU EAST COAST BIAS!!!!!

  11. Any forum that is not niche-driven will have horrible feedback content.

    It’s the equivalent of tourists going to Times Square in search of a real NYC bar, while New Yorkers will go on Second Ave.

    ESPN is soooooo Times Square.

  12. I like that this site has 3 niche’s. Can “niche” be pluralized? I think it can. I’m leaving it. I like even more that the 3 niche’s (there I go again) have very little to do with each other. Books, baseball, and cooking. It reminds me of that SNL sketch from like 15 years ago “everything Scottish and pizza”. I hope some of you remember that sketch. Otherwise my reference of it is pretty meaningless. Then again this whole comment is probably meaningless. Well at least pointless.

  13. FWIW, I am a NYY fan who enjoys your writing, appreciates your insite & values your opinions (whether bball, literature or food), even if you don’t believe that “Joba Christ” will deliver us from evil. Keep up the *great* work.

  14. Joe…you are way off there. Joba will go 32-0, post a 0.00 ERA, and even hit 12 HR (he’ll homer in every interleague at-bat). Thinking anything else would just be stupid.

  15. Things that should be more important to Keith Law’s arch enemy than anything actually written by Keith Law:

    a) Learning about the apostrophe, its existence and when to use it
    b) Proper usage of commas
    c) Ending questions with a question mark, even stupid hypothetical ones
    d) Realizing that directly addressing Keith Law, by calling him ‘Keith Law’ makes him sound like someone’s mother. So maybe he’s the arch enemy of not eating your vegetables.

  16. I love vegetables.

  17. “I haven’t written anything for the site in ten days”

    Why not? I was so boerd at work the other day I had to choose between reading the latest work comp manual or Olney’s blog.

    Well, at least now I’m up to date on the newest work comp laws.

  18. Josh,

    You should join the group “ESPN ‘conversation’ makes me want to ram an ice pick into my skull” if you are a facebooker.

    No offense to you, Keith, or your employer…in the event this comment is approved.

  19. Me, fail English? That’s unpossible!

  20. Tracy Ringolsby strikes again.

    Who Watches The Watchmen?

  21. Keith: I am really looking forward to your comments on the Mets-Twins deal. In my opinion, the Mets just got away with robbery. Am I right or is their a hidden gem amongst those 4?

  22. Maybe I’m in the minority here, but I think that the Twins did decently here, given their constraints. I’m bullish on Gomez, and one of the arms might pan out. Given that Martinez was apparently off the table, this might have been the best that they could do.

  23. Hughes or Ellsbury blows Gomez out of the water, honestly. I think the Twins waited too long and at this point, it was probably the best they could do.

  24. I don’t think that Ellsbury was really on the table, though.

  25. I think it is pretty obvious that any deal built around Hughes would have been vastly superior to what the Mets gave up. I never understood the hype around Ellsbury.

    The Twins really blew it. They should have moved on the Yankees deal before Hankenstein was reeled in by Cashman.

  26. The problem with any Hughes-based offer is that it wouldn’t have addressed what the Twins really need – young hitters. They do a great job of developing pitchers and had plenty of pitching prospects in the pipeline. That’s why they wanted Ellsbury/Martinez first, and settled for Gomez.

  27. “Keith Law is biased comments are really annoying.”

    I’m a little confused as to what this person is trying to say. Is he just a moron, unable to formulate coherent thoughts? Or could he attempting to be a little metaphorical, knowing that Keith is an avid reader?

    Let’s break it down: By the sentence construction, the disgruntled reader apparently thinks that ‘Keith Law is biased comments’ is the noun. I think this can be interpreted a few ways. Perhaps he believes that Keith Law IS biased comments – that Keith is the personification of ‘biased comments’ – an amalgamation of all biased opinions and ideas (especially of those on the east coast). To this reader, ‘Keith Law’ is not a real person. Only ‘biased comments,’ which together create the monster that is KLAW.

    Or maybe he’s just a effing moron. You make the call.