Jim Caldwell: When Settling Somehow Isn't Really Settling...

     Before Jim Caldwell had even been announced as the Detroit Lions' new head coach, the spin cycle had already begun.

     No sooner had Ken Whisenhunt stood up Martin Mayhew and Tom Lewand, than the local paid shills who cover this team were already singing the praises of Caldwell. And less than 24 hours after Whisenhunt turned them down, Caldwell was hired, a rush job if ever there was. It was fairly obvious from the beginning that Whisenhunt was their man, though depending on who you believe, Bill O'Brien could have been their man before that, if the Lions would have had the testicular fortitude to can the Schwartz the day they were officially eliminated from the playoffs, instead of keeping him around for one last loss for no good reason. And when their man rejected them to follow the money (not to mention the control of the roster, but we'll touch on that later), Mayhew and Lewand went into panic mode. They were so desperate to save face, that they found the most desperate candidate they could and hired him on the spot. And despite the blatantly obvious fact that he wasn't their first or second choice, Lewand insisted at the introductory presser that no, this was also "Plan A" all along, even though he addressed Whisenhunt before even mentioning Caldwell. How stupid does this man think we are? Remember: No other team had any serious interest in Caldwell, and the Ravens were ready to shit-can him if no other team hired him!

     And who could blame them? Baltimore finished 29th in total yards and 25th in scoring in Caldwell's first full season as offensive coordinator, which would indicate that the previous year's Super Bowl run couldn't exactly be attributed to him. And keep in mind, he'd never been an offensive coordinator before that; he'd spent several years as an abysmal college head coach at Wake Forest, and a QB coach up until Tony Dungy essentially picked him as his replacement in Indy. And after one particularly awful Peyton-less season, he was given the boot without getting the chance to right the ship with Andrew Luck the next year. You can debate all you want about whether he should have been given another chance, but the Colts must have seen something in him they didn't like. Such as, say, horrid in-game management skills and calling indefensible timeouts.

     Yet, this is the guy who has been hired to fill what every national pundit has called the best available coaching position in the NFL. And yet, the lead candidate didn't want the best coaching position in the NFL. Which leads one to believe that maybe this isn't the best coaching position in the NFL. There's been word that not only was money a factor in Whisenhunt's decision (to the tune of $1M more a season), but that in Tennessee he'd be afforded far more flexibility to shape the roster the way he saw fit. And allegedly he was uncomfortable with Matthew Stafford being such a large part of the decision-making process. Given his experience as something of a QB "guru," the fact that he wasn't willing to or convinced he could fix Stafford should be a bit concerning to Lions fans, especially Stafford's previous statements indicating that he doesn't think he needs fixing, or QB gurus, or anything of the sort.

     And predictably, the national media loves this hire, mostly because of Dungy and Manning coming out in support of him. Did anyone seriously think that either of these guys would throw Caldwell under the bus even if they did think he was a lackluster coach? Of course not! And honestly, Caldwell's effect on Manning, which has been loudly trumpeted by his apologists, has always been somewhat overblown. If any coach should be given credit for Manning becoming what he is today, it should be Tom Moore, the Colts' OC for over a decade starting Peyton's rookie year. Lions' fans might remember Moore as the reason Scott Mitchell looked like a competent quarterback and the architect behind the Lions' offense that led the league in 1995.

     At the same time, there's an encouraging sign or two. Caldwell supposedly showed up, broke down game film with Stafford, and went over how he was going to help him improve his passing game. You've got to like that, at the very least. No matter what his defenders might suggest, Matt Stafford has declined considerably in his time with this team, and there's an argument to be made that this is directly related to a coaching staff that didn't know what to do with him. Caldwell, at least, is coming in with a game plan, and that's a solid start. 

      Does that in itself make him the right man for the head coaching job? I'm still not convinced that's the case. This whole decision still reeks of massive overreaction all around; hiring a guy who is the polar opposite of Jim Schwartz in every single way, and in as hasty of a manner as they possibly could.

     One thing's for certain: This is almost assuredly the current brain trust's last chance to get it right. This might be the last opportunity to not squander the career of possibly the best wide receiver to ever play the game, not to mention a core that seemingly possesses the talent to be a real playoff contender. Given all of this, not to mention their ridiculous attempts on controlling every word that comes from Allen Park, and the fact that this is, in fact, the Detroit Lions, there's absolutely no reason left to give them the benefit of the doubt. 

     Martin Mayhew and Tom Lewand had better be absolutely positive that Jim Caldwell is the right man to turn this sorry franchise around.

     Their own fate depends on it.

The Baseball Hall Of Fame, And The BBWAA's Irrelevance On Full Display...

     Honestly, I'm surprised they managed to elect a whole three players this year.

     A pity, really, as there were far more deserving inductees than ballot spots to vote them in.

     But the Old Cranks Society met the bare minimum of expectations this year, electing Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Frank Thomas to the Baseball Hall of Fame. All three new to the ballot for 2014, all three more than deserving of the honor. But, as it is seemingly every year anymore, it's not about who got in, but who didn't. Or rather, why they didn't.

     Initially, I had intended to write about the ongoing debate on whether or not Jack Morris deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, particularly over the middle infield double-play team that contributed every bit as much, if not more, to the Detroit Tigers' last World Series victory than the "winningest pitcher of the 80's," as if such a thing holds any real relevance. I admit, I was looking forward to ripping 97.1 The Ticket's Pat "um, ah, ya know... and stuff" Caputo a new one for lashing out at sabermetrics as the reason Morris isn't a Hall of Famer, conveniently ignoring the traditional stats that back that argument up. (The Detroit News' Kurt Mensching sums up both the traditional and stathead arguments against Morris pretty well here.)

     But then, this happened.

     Now, it's not very often that I agree with Dan Le Batard on anything. But his take on the steroid controversy is far more well-reasoned then most of the fossils that make up the Baseball Writers Association of America. And I must admit, I gained quite a bit of respect for him with this stunt, in which he turned his vote over to Deadspin in exchange for a charitable contribution. And the ballot their readers came up with for him is a far better one than most of the writers who came up with their own, and even Le Batard was impressed with the respect with which the Deadspin voters treated the process, even in making a mockery of it. And for that we should all be thankful, because it only serves to illustrate just how incompetent the body normally unilaterally tasked with making that decision really is.

     Case in point: Ken Gurnick, the Dodgers' paid shill MLB.com beat reporter, who turned in a ballot having voted for Jack Morris... and only Jack Morris. "As for those who played during the era of PED use, I won't vote for any of them." Which makes sense; let's just ignore an entire 20-year period of baseball history in order to put yourself on a moral high horse, while denying entry to players like Maddux, Glavine, and Craig Biggio, who have never even been accused or suspected of steroid use! Worse yet, Gurnick ignores the fact that Maddux and Morris were both in the major leagues at the same time for a nine-year period, and that Morris didn't actually retire until 1994. Throw in the fact that PED's have been an issue since at least the mid-80's, possibly earlier, and Gurnick's already tortured argument falls apart entirely. The worst part is, he admits to having no reason to believe Maddux used, nor any legitimate reason to deny him a vote! Luckily, he's already on record as stating he will abstain from voting in the future, but given his willingness to make the story about himself here, I question his ability to objectively report on baseball from here on out.

     Then there's the fucklogic of one Murray "Don't call my blog a blog!" Chass, who embodies everything I despise about print journalism, and is right up there at the top of the list of reasons the newspaper industry is dying a slow, painful death. Chass thankfully retired from The New York Times in 2008, and has since spent his time writing blogs, denying that he is writing blogs, and screaming at anyone who will listen about how much he hates blogs. In his post about his Hall of Fame ballot, he cites Jeff Bagwell, the aforementioned Biggio, and Mike Piazza among his list of steroid users who won't be getting his vote. Again, never mind that there is no proof that any of them used, they are cheaters in his mind. Naturally, people with actual brains in their heads ripped Chass a new one, and rightfully so.

     How does Chass respond? Why, with a ridiculous rant about how the filthy bloggers don't have anything other than anonymous hearsay to go on, and then... using anonymous hearsay to prove his point. Seriously, all you have is backne, and the word of one reporter who won't back up his accusations? You're going to have to do better than that. And if you get to denounce guys who write for entirely credible news sources simply because their work is web-based, then I get to denounce you as an ancient relic of a bygone era, not to mention a tremendous hypocrite. Truly a shame he went back on his threat to give up his Hall of Fame vote.

     And it just goes to show how out of touch the BBWAA is with baseball. And this has got to be the year that something finally changes. As always, you have the idiots who will deny someone a vote just to ensure that nobody is unanimously elected. If you think Mantle, Ruth, and Mays weren't first ballot hall-of-famers (and as nobody has ever received 100% of the vote, somebody had to have thought this), you should be taken out back and shot, or at the least kicked out of the BBWAA. Or Marty Noble, the half-wit who limited his ballot to three players for the sole reason that "I don't want 28 people entering the Hall at once," proving once and for all that absolutely no justification whatsoever is needed to grant or deny a vote to anyone. If this isn't proof enough that the process by which players are elected needs to be entirely overhauled, then there really is no reasoning with you.

     The worst part of all of this is that players who should by all logical rights be in the Hall based on individual merit are now held to an unfair standard simply because of the era in which they played. And, as Buster Olney rightly pointed out six years ago, the fault lies at the feet of Major League Baseball for not doing more at the time to get to the bottom of the problem, instead making whipping boys of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens while simply ignoring the greater problem. And until MLB addresses the issue head-on and completely instead of leaving it in the hands of the ink-stained wretches' best guesses and stances on morality, we're in for several repeats of the class of 2013.

     Call Dan Le Batard self-serving and sanctimonious if you will, but in his explanation as to why he agreed to give his vote to Deadspin's readers, he raised some entirely valid points about the antiquated process that is the Hall of Fame vote. The process has become less about honoring the greatest players in the sport, and more of a grand power-trip of writers carrying out their agendas and wielding their vote as a weapon against anyone who's ever slighted them. Besides, to dismiss Le Batard's actions as simply attention whoring ignores the self-righteous saber-rattling on display by the rest of the organization at large on a regular basis. There's a part of me that believes that the reason that he has been so vilified for taking part in this, is that he's exposed just that, and proven that, at the very least, the fans are better at this than the writers. The BBWAA has been forced to confront the debacle the election process has become. The self-congratulatory circle-jerk has come to a screeching halt. Egos have been deflated. And for one brief moment, the public was allowed to be part of the good ol' boys club, and the good ol' boys didn't like it one bit.

     And for that in itself, this was all worth it.

This Is America's Most Uninformed Article About Flint, And You've Probably Never Heard Of It

     ...Here we go again. Another outsider who's probably never even set foot in Michigan, telling us what a post-apocalyptic nightmare we're living in.

     If you live in or around Flint, you've probably already been linked several times to an article posted on the website PolicyMic, which appears to have all the journalistic integrity and substance as Buzzfeed, Upworthy, or other similar 'news' sites that do little more than take whatever photos they can find in the public domain, add a couple lines of vapid commentary between each one, and call it a day. And the actual writing is about as self-centered and unaware as your average Thought Catalog rant. Essentially, upper-class twentysomethings assuming they know how the world works, without ever having had to work for anything. And in fact that would appear to sum up the author of the piece in question, Laura Dimon, whose father just happens to be the CEO of JPMorgan Chase.

     With the very title of her piece, the author makes you aware that she believes she's somehow breaking new ground: "This Is America's Most Violent, Apocalyptic City, And You've Probably Never Heard Of It." Because clearly nobody has ever written about what a hellhole Flint is before. Not like Flint is already known nationally as "Murdertown, USA" or anything. And god knows, it's not like a fairly well known documentary was made about the decline of the city and it's most well-known industry either. Maybe you've never heard of it if you have been living under a rock for the last 25 years, or in New York, apparently. Note, by the way, that the title of the article has since been changed since they were called out on it.

     Now, mind you, I don't currently live in Flint, nor have I ever. But I've spent plenty of time and money there over the last several years, attended college there, and as a born-and-raised Detroiter, I know a thing or two about the media making a national punchline out of your hometown. And naturally, the writer starts out with a couple digs at my "dwindling, deteriorating," financially insolvent city, before getting into tearing a new one into a city that she's never actually set foot in. (Apparently, BuzzMic doesn't have much of a budget for sending it's "reporters" to cover their stories worth a damn.)

     What I love most about this piece is the fact that the primary source quoted in the article has spent a lot of time lately distancing himself from and condemning the article as publicly as possible. Gordon Young, Flint native, actual journalist, and author of Teardown: Memoir of a Vanishing City, posted this in regard to another article about the PolicyFeed piece: "In this particular case, I wish the author would have devoted less space to all the negative statistics and old news about Flint's decline, and more to the inspiring residents of my hometown who are using innovative approaches to improve the city." He goes on to mention a few of said residents he suggested Dimon interview for the piece, which of course she didn't.

     After several paragraphs of the usual statistics about Flint in decline, shots at the Midwest in general ("the hell that has become most of the Rust Belt"), pictures of the desolation of Flint that looked more like shots from the east side of Detroit and Israel (because, go figure, they were shots of Detroit and Israel) and a choice quote or two from Michael Moore (gee, and I thought you were treading new ground here), Dimon devotes a whole 150 words to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, all hope is not yet lost for Flint.

     And it doesn't end there. There's a companion piece, "16 Portraits Of Everyday People Who Refuse To Let Their Hometown Be Defeated," which rehashes the stats from the previous article, then presents 16 photos she says "depict the stories of the everyday people who are fighting for a better Flint." Except, y'know, without actually fucking telling the stories. Dimon then presents 16 completely context-free stock photos, without even identifying the people in them, much less tell any story. This is even more disingenuous than the original article; like you're doing some great service by posting a bunch of photos you copied from AP or a photographer's Flickr stream without giving any of the context or backstory behind them. Hell, how do we know these aren't just more photos of Detroit, Baghdad, or wherever, seeing how PolicyWorthy clearly doesn't fact check anything until they get called out by it?

     This is the problem with journalism in the 21st century. The media assumes we don't have the attention span to comprehend anything more than three sentences long without pictures to break it up, so they feel the need to dumb things down for us, or worse, try to pass off lazy, barely-researched pieces like this assuming we're too stupid to tell the difference. It's not that you're only telling one side of the story while giving a couple sentences (and 16 photos!) of lip service to the other. It's that you can't even tell that side of the story correctly.

"What The F%#$ Are You Booing At?"

     If you even have to ask the question, you're probably the answer.

     Let me preface this by saying: I've never booed my own team at a sporting event, but I can completely understand why someone would. Especially if they're a Lions fan, if only because they make it so easy. And I was tempted to add this to the laundry list I posted earlier of reasons that I want a new head coach for this team.

     But Jim Schwartz's comments to fans after Sunday's game, and the firestorm that ensued, were far more fascinating to me than anything that happened on the field that day, because they serve to illustrate how out-of-touch players and coaches really are with their fanbases sometimes, and how misdirected their ire can be. Instead of lashing out at a team that was about to complete the biggest choke job in Detroit sports since the Tigers' 2010 season that ended in a heartbreaking game 163, Schwartz took his anger out on a fanbase that had finally had enough of his asinine in-game management and giving up with time still on the clock in regulation.

     However, this isn't about Schwartz's screw-up, but rather about the "how dare you express your displeasure" mentality that found itself on display this week. After letting the fans have it not once, but twice during the game, he had a few more choice words afterwards: "Our fans have been great for us, but we needed them on our side in overtime." Except that it wasn't overtime yet! You still had a chance to win in regulation, and you got scared and let it go to OT instead. Seems an entirely worthy reason for the crowd to let you have it, in my mind.

     Even better was the remark by Schwartz that "I don't know how you cannot" pay attention to the jeering fans. Well, you get paid $6 million a year to figure that out. If you're that rattled by booing that you let it get in your head badly enough to start yelling back, then clearly you don't have the mental toughness to be a head coach in the NFL.

     Somewhat overshadowed by Schwartz's response this week were the remarks made by Matthew Stafford's girlfriend, who should really just go back to sitting there and looking pretty. Per her Twitter: "You wouldn't even know we were playing at home the way these fans are booing our home team. #unbelievable" Of course, she left herself wide open for @DetroitKoolAid to win the internet for the week with this comeback "You wouldn't know Stafford played for the Lions the way he keeps throwing to the other team." Ya know, it's all well and good you want to stick up for your man. But next time you have a thought like that, maybe don't post it to Twitter where the most piled-upon fanbase in pro sports can see it.

     The other argument I always hear against booing your team is "Well, how would you like it if we came to your work and did it to you?" Clearly, anyone who says this has never worked in customer service. Because as a guy who's worked in foodservice for almost a decade, I'd take booing over some of the shit I've taken there! I can't recall how many times people have said downright nasty and vile things to me because their food was five minutes later than they were told, and threats of violence towards us are not at all out of the ordinary. Spare me your bullshit and come have people screaming in your face on a daily basis for $7.40 an hour. Then we'll fucking talk about who has it worse.

     It comes down to this: You pay the price of admission to go to the games, you have the right to criticize or boo the team on the field, or the coaches on the sidelines. Period. Obviously, common decency should prevail (I mean, don't go out of your way to be a dick about it), but just because they're on the field doesn't make them above criticism. And if they can't tune it out for millions of dollars a year... I'll gladly let 'em come toss pizzas with me.

The War On The "War On Christmas" Has Officially Gone Too Far.

     It seems like this comes up at some point every year: The "war on Christmas." The belief that by not going out of their way to acknowledge their religion and only their religion, the rest of the world is clearly trying to bring down Christianity as we know it. A war that's apparently being waged any time some minimum-wage Walmart employee wishes you "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas," or anytime a town doesn't erect a nativity scene at city hall, or whenever some dipshit complains to a school district about religious music being played at their kid's band concert.

     But it's been at least a fairly non-violent war. Until now.

     A Salvation Army bell-ringer was accosted by a woman in Phoenix who took particular offense to the 'holiday' greeting. That's right: Saying "Happy Holidays" is akin to declaring jihad on Christianity, but jaw-jacking somebody for saying it, even someone who's trying to raise money for charity, is entirely acceptable. Because clearly, the Salvation Army is the enemy here. You know, that bastion of atheism and homosexuality, the freaking Salvation Army.

     And people wonder why I'm not a practicing member of anything anymore. Are we seriously at the point where we're getting outraged over well-wishes from people? That's really the most offensive thing to you, is someone wishing you well, simply because they don't celebrate the same religious holiday you do? I mean, never mind that Jesus, whether you're a believer or not, is not the "reason for the season," but rather the winter solstice and accompanying pagan celebration, which were in existence long before December 25th was declared by the church to be Jesus' birthday. But even to acknowledge that, god forbid, another holiday exists between Halloween and the new year is something worthy of physical violence?

     But that's just one example of how Christianity is being "oppressed" this holiday season. Then, you've got this: a Christian group covering up an atheist display with a banner, then complaining that they're the ones whose right to free speech is being suppressed. Now, I guarantee that if some atheist group were to put a banner over a nativity scene or something similar, Christians would be up in arms over it, and rightfully so. So why is it okay to do it to another group? Part of me is hoping this is a hoax, just because I don't want to believe anyone is this stupid.

     What I don't understand is why in the hell it has to be this way. Christians: Your holiday is already recognized by the federal government. Every store on Earth has Christmas sales out the ass. Damn near every show on TV has a Christmas special of some sort. How much more public acknowledgement do you fucking need? Enjoy your holiday and quit shoving it further down everyone's throats. Atheists and whoever the hell else doesn't celebrate a holiday in December: You either have the day off, or you're likely getting time-and-a-half to be there. Let 'em have their damn Christmas songs without complaining that they're trying to indoctrinate you. Enjoy the fucking day off and don't be such a goddamn buzzkill about it.

     I'm sorry, but this whole thing has "first-world problems" written all over it. Y'know, there are plenty of examples of freedom of religion being trampled on around the world, and the worst we can come up with here is some vapid talking heads on cable news fretting about whether Jesus and Santa are white. For the love of fuck, it's not like anyone's being arrested or killed for practicing their religion (or lack thereof) however they want to, so why in the hell can't we just live and let live? You go believe whatever you believe, I'll do the same, and neither of us will go start a media firestorm about the other. Deal?

Delayed Reaction and Airing Of Grievances: Jim Schwartz Needs To Go, NOW.

     (Editor's note: So, I'm once again guilty of neglecting the blog for weeks at a time. And as such, today's gonna be a day-long hate-fest, with all the ranting that I, or the two people who still read this, can handle. I wanted to do this on Monday, to coincide with Festivus and all that, but my real job got in the way of that plan. But that doesn't mean that I still haven't got a lot of problems with you people, nor that you're not gonna hear about 'em. So, here goes.)

     This is what I get for making bold predictions about the Detroit Lions.

     Hell, this is what I get for having the slightest bit of faith in the Detroit Lions.

     I wrote it in this very space, after the Turkey Day victory over the Packers, so I guess I'll take my beating for it now:

     And at the risk of looking like an idiot come the end of this season, it's bold prediction time: The Detroit Lions will be your 2013 NFC North champs.

     Obviously, that won't be happening, as Sunday's loss to the G-Men guarantees that no matter how badly Chicago and Green Bay tried to hand them the division on a silver platter, the Lions won't take it now. I could go into the details of Sunday's choke job, but what's the point? You already know what happened, even if you didn't watch the game: Matthew Stafford turned over the ball a ton and threw a pick-six (in this case, to a guy who was in jail the night before); Reggie Bush fumbled at a key point in the game; Calvin Johnson dropped a pass, and is still trying to play through injury; the defense made some no-name receiver look like Calvin Johnson (seriously, who the hell is Jerrel Jernigan?), and Jim Schwartz was awful at managing the play clock again. I could write this very recap at any point in the last month, and it would be entirely accurate.

     And that is all the more reason the Jim Schwartz era in Detroit needs to meet it's merciful end.

     The same problems that have plagued this team all season, and the last few seasons, were all too visible
on Sunday. And nothing has really been done to correct them; in the case of Stafford, at least, they're actually getting worse. Even his biggest apologists can't argue that Stafford hasn't regressed this season. And considering how great he looked in that 2011 season which ended in their first playoff appearance in over a decade, it's not a lack of talent on his part. Whether it's bad mechanics, or something else, clearly a new coach is needed that can fix a broken quarterback.

     The NFC North was essentially gift-wrapped for the Lions this season. They actually had a solid draft; Ziggy Ansah, Darius Slay, and Larry Warford have all made an immediate impact, and they found an undrafted gem in Joe Fauria. There were even some decent free-agent signings in Reggie Bush and Glover Quin. Most importantly, the only other competitive teams in their division lose their starting quarterbacks and other key players for large chunks of the season. And yet... here we sit, on the outside looking in, as Green Bay and Chicago play Sunday to decide which team wants it less. That is inexcusable, and the entire coaching staff should be shown the door immediately following the Minnesota game on Sunday.

     There's no reason the Lions should have had another second-half collapse this season. All the talent was there. On paper, this team was as good as any in the league. Yet, they couldn't manage to string together four consecutive quarters of good football if their lives depended on it. How many times have we watched this team blow what should be a fairly safe lead in the fourth quarter this year? Since their win in Chicago, it's been five. And at some point, that has to come back on the coaches. Clearly the players have the ability, but there's something else, whether it's an offense that is, at times, overly conservative late in games, or stupid penalties that bring a successful drive to a screeching halt, or hand a first down to the opposing team, that keeps them from closing out games. And that last part comes back to the clubhouse culture, it's something that has reared its ugly head many times during the Schwartz regime, it's something that really came to the forefront in the arrest-plagued 2012 offseason, and it's something that falls squarely on the shoulders of the coaching staff.

     How long can you really give a guy to turn around a franchise, even one that sunk to the depths that it did during Matt Millen's tyrannical reign of terror? And how long can you continue to make excuses for this team based on what happened five or more years ago? Wake up: It's not 2008 anymore. Only three players from that roster are even still on this team: Calvin, Andre Fluellen, and Dominic Raiola. What happened back then should have no bearing on what this team does now, nor the expectations that should be set for it. You've had virtually complete turnover of the roster since then, five years of solid, if not spectacular, drafting, and a GM that's given you a roster that provides you every opportunity to win. And yet... here we sit, on the outside looking in. And somehow, Schwartz doesn't consider this to be a failure.

     In the post-Millen era, mediocrity is no longer good enough, and underachievement cannot be tolerated. And if Martin Mayhew and the Fords want to send that message, they know what they need to do.

Despite Nathan Signing, Fister Trade Still Among Dombrowski's Worst

     Somewhere, Jon Daniels and Dayton Moore are laughing their asses off. Dave Dombrowski has done something that hasn't happened since the deal that sent Omar Infante to Atlanta for Jacque Jones: he got absolutely fleeced in a trade.

     It was fairly obvious from the start of this offseason that at least one starting pitcher was going to get traded. Dombrowski had made it clear that Drew Smyly would be in the rotation come 2014, so somebody had to go. And sure enough, it was Doug Fister that got shipped out to Washington, to join an already solid pitching staff in Gio Gonzalez, Stephen Strasburg, Jordan Zimmermann, and some other guy. But the return was far less than anyone could have anticipated.

     Keep in mind before we get too far into this: Doug Fister is a top-25 pitcher in this league, without question. Per Fangraphs, he ranks 9th in WAR, 13th in FIP, and 20th in ERA over the last three seasons. A lot has been made by factions of this fanbase that we're overvaluing Fister, but those numbers don't lie. And the free-agent market for pitchers is so bad, that the Royals just gave Jason Vargas $32 milion, and the Twins gave Ricky Nolasco $49 million! Hell, Scott Kazmir was just handed a two year, $22 million deal! Not to mention, the last time a pitcher of Doug's caliber was traded, he commanded the best position player in Kansas City's farm system and a decent pitching prospect as well. Fister is projected to make, at most, $15 million over the next two years. That being said, what does a top cost-controlled pitcher in this league get you in trade?

     Not very much, evidently. The players expected to make an immediate impact are filler at best. Steve Lombardozzi makes yesterday's signing of Don Kelly entirely redundant. He had an OPS+ of 69 last year (a league-average player's is 100, and Kelly's was 76), and hit .259/.278/.338 in that same season. Technically he can play second, third, short, and left, but he doesn't have the arm to play any of them capably, save for maybe second. Then, there's Ian Krol, whose upside is 2012 Phil Coke. In 27 innings last year, Krol had a 3.95 ERA, a 1.31 WHIP, 28 hits and 22 strikeouts. Not particularly impressive numbers, and his splits against righties are absolutely dreadful, making his ceiling as a LOOGY and not much more.

     Then we come to Robbie Ray, the centerpiece of this deal that Trader Dave is high on, for some reason. Ranked #7 in the Nationals' system, it's hard to see why. His ceiling seems to be #3 starter, but it's almost as likely that he ends up in the bullpen as well. At any rate, he's not expected to be major-league ready until 2015 at the earliest. He, too, has some rather ugly platoon splits, not to mention command issues.

     It makes you wonder, how he couldn't do any better. If you believe ESPN's Keith Law, there's several other GM's around this league wondering the same thing. This is the best we could get? No Taylor Jordan? No Drew Storen? No Tyler Clippard, even?

     Then, what do the Tigers do with the savings from Fister's deal? Why, go and overpay for a 39-year old closer coming off a career year, of course. To be fair, I like the Joe Nathan signing a lot, and it gives this team the shutdown closer it really hasn't had since... I dunno, Willie Hernandez? Sure, Jose Valverde and Fernando Rodney had their spots, but they also had some abysmal years as well. Nathan, on the other hand, hasn't had a down year since the Giants converted him from a starter in 2002, save for a shortened 2011 campaign in which he was coming off Tommy John surgery.

     The Nathan signing is definitely one that needed to happen, given the Tigers' complete lack of a bullpen at the moment. But that said, let's hope that Trader Dave isn't done working magic yet. Because if this team goes into 2014 with Andy Dirks as its everyday left fielder, and Coke, Krol, and Luke Putkonen as it's primary go-to bullpen pieces, next season's gonna hurt a hell of a lot.