Jon Heyman vs. Keith Law Re: Glaus/Rolen

A few days ago, I caught Jon Heyman’s take on the Scott Rolen for Troy Glaus trade and was going to comment on it, but Keith Law has done my job for me. Not my real job, I’m still selling vacuums door to door. Keith can’t take that away from me.

Anyway, let’s see Heyman’s take:

• The Scott Rolen for Troy Glaus trade makes sense -- for the Blue Jays, anyway. They get the better defensive player and a player not involved in the steroid mess. (According to SI, in 2003 and '04 Glaus received multiple shipments of steroids through an allegedly illegal Internet distribution network.) Execs were accused of looking the other way during the Steroid Era; now some of them are disregarding what we already know. You'd think if any team would be sensitive to the issue it might be the Cardinals. Apparently not.

I was pretty sure that was backwards. I was going to comment on it, but someone asked Keith Law during his ESPN chat on Thursday.

Jonathan Rosenberg (Toronto, Ont): Thoughts on the Glaus for Rolen deal.

Keith Law: I have yet to come up with an argument that justifies this deal for the Blue Jays. They got the older, more hurt (back troubles dating back a decade), worse-hitting player who's under contract for an extra year.

They are both injury proned and in a decline phase production wise. But the most important point when talking about a deal between two past-their-prime, injury prone players? How long you have to pay for them.

Glaus is due $12.75 million in 2008, then can exercise a player option for $11.25 million in 2009.

Rolen is due $11 million in 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Glaus still managed to produce pretty well when he was in the lineup last year. He had an OPS+ of 120 last year with 20 homers (115 games) and a line of .262/.366/.473.

Rolen had a robust 89+ OPS + with 8 homers in 112 games and a line of .365/.331/.398. He was decent in 2006, but his 2005 was another injury year.

Todd in Irvine, Please Leave Keith Law Alone

From today's chat:

Todd (Irvine, CA): Keith, there's word out of San Diego that the Padres could be after Jason Jennings and Mark Loretta, and that Marcus Giles could be part of that deal.

Keith Law: (1:51 PM ET ) I haven't heard anything about this other than the note you sent to my mailbag and the ten times you've asked it today!

Another highlight from the chat:

T Yuba City CA: It seems like many of the baseball folks at ESPN are Angel Haters. What gives??

Keith Law: (2:33 PM ET ) It's something we did at orientation when I was first hired. We spent a whole hour on Angel-hating - the why, the how, the when, etc.

Keith Law Does Not Like his Coworkers

Who can blame him? This is actually a positive post (about Keith) for a few chat answers he had on today’s ESPN chat. Keith is usually to the point, but I thought these were worth sharing with all 2 readers of this site.

Andy (Houston): Biggio is not getting any press because he is one of the most stand up players in all of sports. maybe he he bad mouthed his teamates (Owens), demanded trades (Kobe), or whined non stop (Owens again) he would be on sports center more often. It's sad that a future HOF isn't getting any press for this great milestone.

Keith Law: Seriously, you're making me want to write an article on how one player's selfish pursuit of a rather meaningless milestone is helping to sink his team's playoff hopes. Isn't that a story? If his initials were B.B., don't you think this would be a regular rant in sports sections everywhere? What if Biggio was African-American, or Latino? He's getting a free pass. Just be happy with that.

A fair point to pretty much beat down the Biggio fans. Biggio came up a few times in the chat, as to why he’s not getting as much attention for approaching 3,000 hits as some past players have received. It’s because he sucks, and it seems to be to the detriment of his team. Rather simple. He’s lucky he’s not getting negative attention, as Keith points out.

Also, how ludicrous is this guy's point, that Biggio doesn't get comparable attention because he's a "stand up player"? Like the most recent inductees into the 3,000 hit club were a bunch of hated guys (Gwynn, Ripken, Boggs, etc.). Well I hated Boggs but that's beside the point.

Bill "Sports Guy" Simmons (ESPN Studios) : Can't we talk Celtics basketball in your baseball chat?

Keith Law: Go away. And stop talking about Ronald Jenkees. Every time you mention him I think of Leroy Jenkins, and hear him shouting his own name over and over...

I would not have expected him to take this question, since they get thousands in these chats and given that they are employed by the same company, but then he also seems to let out some animosity towards Simmons. Simmons and Law would be exact opposites really. Simmons likes to talk about MTV crap and the NBA; Law is MLB with a focus on scouting, and literature. For the record I find them both somewhat entertaining, but for different reasons.

Fran (Helsinki, Finland): I hate this whole trend of glorifying scrappers. I like the workingman's hero as much as the next guy, but enough is enough. Biggio isn't good enough to play everyday anymore and he is sinking his team by chasing a milestone that does nothing for himself or the sport.

Keith Law: Couldn't agree more. The David Eckstein Fetish still baffles me. That's great that he plays hard. It's nice that he's succeeded against all odds. Why he gets more love than, say, Jimmy Rollins (or this year JJ Hardy) is beyond me.

Firejoemorgan does a good job of beating the hell out of the Eckstein/Erstad love thrown around, but you can't disagree with Keith here as well.

Dusty Baker (Egoville, Wisconsin_: Why won't the Orioles consider me for their coaching vacancy?

Keith Law: Maybe they're familiar with your work.

Just good, honest, accurate, short answers. The Dusty answer is outstanding when you consider they share an employer.

*Update*
As a couple of readers pointed out, there is also this gem:

Richie (Seattle): What's your take on the new ESPN player ratings? I haven't heard you or Neyer mention them.

Keith Law: Just a toy. No analytical value.