Monday, March 16, 2009

No Downside To Lions' Trade For Peterson

I don’t see a downside to the Lions trading defensive lineman Cory Redding to Seattle for linebacker Julian Peterson.
Redding was always willing with the Lions, but the last two seasons he wasn’t able to live up to the huge contract the Lions gave him after he surprisingly posted an 8-sack season in 2006. It didn’t matter when Shaun Rogers was still around and getting double-teammed. Redding still wasn’t productive - despite the Lions overall success the first half of the 2007 season.
Peterson started virtually all of Seattle’s games last year. He will be 31 next season, but still seems to have retained his physical tools. He is an extraordinarily-gifted player, who has often changed the course of games going back to when he took over Michigan State’s upset of No.1 Ohio State in 1998.
As importantly, he gives the Lions a premier defender. Peterson is not the type of player opposing offenses can afford to ignore. There is also a matter of confidence a player of Peterson’s stature brings to a defense.
He didn’t come cheap. His contract with the Seahawks, signed in 2006, was backloaded for the next few years. He is a $6.5 million player in 2009, but at least there is the possibility Peterson will provide production in conjunction to what the Lions are paying him. Redding wasn’t doing that, and it seemed unlikely he would in the future, either.
It was easily the best and biggest move the Lions have made this off season. Could a run at Jay Culter be next? Wouldn’t be surprised.

Random Thoughts

- Another rough outing by Zach Miner Monday only made the possibility of Rick Porcello beginning the season in the Tigers’ starting rotation all that more likely. Give the kid a shot. He can’t be any worse than Miner, Nate Robertson or Dontrelle Willis. And I’m not among those who feel like if Porcello doesn’t do well, it would damage his psyche beyond repair. I believe it would only help him understand what is necessary to pitch effectively in the major leagues.

- I know all about the RPI, but honestly, how can the Big Ten have seven representatives in the NCAA Tournament? Seems to me like the conference was relatively mediocre this season. Guess it says something about the overall strength of college basketball these days. Or is it parity rather than mediocrity? Hmmm.

Labels: