Columnists say the darnedest things

Sometimes I think our local columnists are of the thought that their readership have the memory of a day old gnat.

Remember when Wobb Parker, back on 2/18, called former Tiger journeyman Jeff Weaver, he of the below .500 career record, a much better pitcher than Jeremy Bonderman? Forget that... Parker now expects Bonderman to become much better than Weaver. Just check out the following prediction...

He should win 17 games this season, no problem.

Make up your mind! Bonderman was a huge disappointment three weeks ago, but now he's expected to "Grow" and have "A breakout season." Really? Parker says you can thank all the sudden Tiger rotation optimism to Kenny Rogers pitching in front of Bonderman.

Parker calls the Tigers inability to sign "A free-agent pitching star" and to "Develop a stud starter" prime reasons the Tigers have been doormats over the years. But inferring that Rogers is a pitching star stretches Parker's credibility and my credulity more than just a little. But we're talking Parker, so credibility isn't really an issue. Rogers is a good, solid pro, but just getting big money doesn't exactly make him an ace. An early in the rotation starter? Sure, especially on the Tigers. Ace? That's another thing entirely.

To me, an ace is a pitcher who's going to win you close to 20 games. Rogers has never won 20, and has a career high of 18, which he's only done once. Look at his career stats, and you have an above .500, 41 year old pitcher, whose average season is 11-8. He's been good and solid, but an ace? At 41?

As for developing a stud starter, a 23 year old that wins 17 games would be a "Stud" by any stretch of the imagaination. I'm not saying that Bonderman is there yet, but predicting 17 wins sure says "Stud" to me.

I realize that Parker is not out and out calling Rogers an ace and Bonderman a stud, but it sure sounds like he's (Here's that word again) inferring that they are as such. If Parker is so positive that Rogers and Bonerman are going to have good seasons, then why rag on Dave Dombrowski?

If you go back to that 2/18 column, Parker called Dombrowski "The worst general manager in Detroit." Now Parker (Here we go again) infers that he likes Dombrowski's pitching moves. Again, he doesn't out and out say as such, but from the tone of the column, Parker is expecting big things from the number one and two starters in the rotation. If you average out Rogers' last two seasons in Texas, expect 16 wins. Add in the Parker projected 17 from Bonderman, and getting 33 wins from the top of your rotation sounds damn good to me.

I don't ask for much from a columnist, as they are paid to give opinions, lame as they may be. Even if I don't agree with that opinion, at the very least I'd expect them to not contradict themselves. Consistency is usually considered a good thing.