In defense of John Franco

Apparently Andrew at Chuck 'n Duck, whose stuff I usually enjoy and agree with, has unresolved John Franco issues.

Going beyond a Seinfeld-esque "what's the deal with the adoration of Franco?", he asks rhetorically:

"Am I supposed to forget that this guy blew save after save, game after game, stayed on long after he should have retired, took up roster spots that could have been given to better, younger players for five or six seasons?"

If you're suddenly wondering, as I was reading this, whether Franco's rep as at least a very good reliever was truly deserved, take a look. It was. As I wrote in my comment on C'nD:

As unspectacular as his K/BB numbers were, he was absurdly stingy with the longball. He never pitched more than 65 innings in a season, so I'll agree his impact has probably been overrated in some quarters. But saying he clogged up the roster "long after he should have retired" is ridiculous. Look at his age-38 season for the love of God, and he was no embarassment at 40.

Then there's the off-the-field attack, which is even more vague and impressionistic than the charge that he wasn't all that good. Even assuming his accounts of Franco "giving tickets to the mafia," and "terrorizing" Rick Reed for crossing the picket line have some basis in fact, they're certainly not as well-documented as his rather extensive charity work. At least there's some good secondhand testimony to back these things up:

"And add that to the fact that numerous former members of the organization (Bobby Valentine, Bobby Ojeda, even Nelson Doubleday) spoke out about the way Franco acted after they left the team, and I'm left with the perception that if Franco was born in California he'd be one of the most vilified Mets of all time."

Well apparently Andrew's going to try his best to make him one anyway. Bizarre.