If you lived anywhere outside of the 817, you’ll remember this World Series for those incredible comebacks, the national emergence of David Freese, the bullpen phone that didn’t work and the defining performance of one of the game’s greatest players. For those who call The Ballpark in Arlington home, however, it was the most bitter of pills to swallow; a reminder for the second year in a row that no matter how close you got, it will forever feel so far away.

How does a franchise spend an offseason after a finish like that? The Rangers went the route of a middle-aged, recent divorcee looking for that last taste of happiness: fancy, expensive foreign jewellery. And while Misty in Orange County may buy Cartier, the Rangers went east and bought the rare diamond known as Darvish.

Yu Darvish, a 25-year-old right-hander from Habinko, Japan, is the newest face of Major League Baseball’s Pan-Asian expansion. To say he was damn good in the Japanese league is a disservice to the term “damn good.” Darvish dominated in his six-year stint with the Nippon-Ham Fighters, twice winning Pacific League MVP and was generally regarded as the best pitcher in the country.

Obviously, interest in Darvish’s services grew in the United States, and after a successful 2011 season, Darvish announced his intentions to pitch in North America. The bidding commenced and in the end it was the Rangers who won with a reported $51.7 million dollar offer sheet. After lengthy negotiations, the team officially signed baseball’s new ambassador to a six-year, $60 million contract. It’s a lot of money for someone who’s never pitched a ball in the Major Leagues, but a necessary market price for someone of that reputation.

Marc Normandin is one of the senior writers for Over The Monster, a Red Sox-flavored blog in the SB Nation family. Normandin, along with the rest of those who follow the Red Sox for either personal or professional reasons, is able draw back on personal experiences when discussing the Darvish phenomenon. Boston’s pursuit of Daisuke Matsuzaka in the winter of 2006 is the closet comparable circus to what Texas did with Darvish.

“[It] seemed much quieter,” Normandin told the The Good Point. “Maybe there was more of an understanding time around that the negotiations were likely to go to the very end, as they had for Matsuzaka. The noise and coverage was heavy at the start and end of the process, but in between, in comparison, seemed light.”

Darvish’s expectations in Texas and what he will be able to produce as a starting pitcher will undoubtedly be two different things. What’s also different is what Texas fans want out of their newest star, and what they’ll ultimately accept regarding his career with the Rangers. For Matsuzaka, expectations were pretty high, and the first couple of seasons went as smooth as one could hope, especially in the baseball hotpot that is Boston. But injuries have derailed Matsuzaka’s MLB career over the past few years, and his performance has not been able to justify the large amount of money he gets paid over the course of the entire contract.

“Things work[ed] out well enough at first, especially since he helped them win a World Series in his first season with the team.” said Normandin. “But they haven’t had much in the way of consistent success with him, and I find it hard to believe that would be okay for Boston.”

But would that be okay for a team like Texas? Rangers history isn’t quite as glamorous as Boston’s; they don’t have a past littered with close calls and crushing defeats. They didn’t have 84 years of World Series heartbreak. The 2004 World Series win for the Red Sox raised expectations for Boston fans. One can assume that if the title of ’04 never happened, and Matsuzaka’s $100 million-combined price was the tipping point that brought them their first world title in what would have been 87 years at that point, Matsuzaka probably could have never pitched another game and Red Sox nation would be calling it the greatest signing in team history.

Will the same courtesies be given to Darvish? Texas doesn’t have 84 years of a championship drought to dwell back on, but that doesn’t mean the fan-base isn’t aching for a winner. From 1972 – when the Washington Senators moved to Texas – to 1995, the ball club never experienced postseason play. From 1996 to 2009, they played October baseball only three times, winning just one game.

Only recently has the team experienced deep postseason play, with two straight years ending the season as World Series losers. The obsession felt in Boston may not be the same in Texas, but there is certainly an urge to win now for Ranger fans.

Because everything is possible at this point, the Yu Darvish era in Texas can technically be a one-year, $100-million dollar investment with a World Series title coming back the other way. Would Ranger fans take the deal? Are there any who wouldn’t?

Even if Yu Darvish is paid like an elite pitcher for the next six years, does he have to pitch like one in order to avoid the “bust” label?

That’s the crux of this argument; what does Darvish have to do in order to be worth the price tag? There are hundreds of different scenarios that could define Darvish’s career, ranging from complete bust to Hall of Famer, but where the line between success and failure?

The Rangers’ pursuit of Yu Darvish wasn’t made in order keep the status quo in the Lone Star State. After two years of devastatingly close calls in the Fall Classic, anything less than a World Series ring may be considered a failure for the current Texas Rangers. If Darvish doesn’t deliver that particular package, history may look back on his career with tainted glasses. If he win three Cy Young’s in six years but brings home zero World Series titles, he may still not receive due praise.

Regardless whether any Texas fan likes the price tag still hanging off Darvish, the Rangers paid the price, and now there’s tremendous pressure to deliver on the deal.

The easy answer is that he’ll do everything in his power to ensure the Flames get into the playoffs. And why shouldn’t he? That is his job after all.

As Rory Boylen of The Hockey News recently stated “If you go down this route, you’re accepting the fact your team will be below average for a couple of years… If Feaster were given the mandate by ownership to forget the playoffs and set the franchise up for a push in 2015, he would have started toward the objective as soon as he arrived.”

The Flames are certainly not below average as their 15th-overall record will show. They’re not great by any means, but they are no stinker. With only a little over $1.7 million in cap space to work with at the deadline, Feaster won’t be breaking the bank on any trades, not without giving up an asset anyway. He already made his move, acquiring Mike Cammalleri from the Montreal Canadiens, though he has yet to get going with just five goals and seven points in 14 games.

But what happens should his plan fail and the Flames miss the playoffs by just a few points? It’ll be the third consecutive season in which that’s happened. You have to be realistic and consider the possibility they will fall just short once again. The Flames are now at risk of being in no man’s land where they are not good enough to make the playoffs, but too good to get any high draft picks.

And that leads nowhere. It’s the same result season in and season out and that is not success. Success is doing better than the season before and sometimes a team has to take a small step backward in order to do take the next one forward.

The past two seasons have seen the Flames play well, just not quite well enough, recording 90 points in 2009-10 and 94 in ’10-11, missing the playoffs by five and three points respectively. This is similar to what happened to the Toronto Maple Leafs right after the lockout when they missed out on the big dance by two points in ’06 and just one in ’07. They kept putting more and more band aids on wounds that really could have used some stitches and it cost them.

Feaster has a little over $17 million to work with over the summer with 16 players signed. He can get a little more room with a buyout of Matthew Stajan who has a $3.5 million cap hit, but has just one goal, six points and is a minus-9 this season while averaging just 10:41 per game. But what should they do with that money?

They need offense badly. The Flames have a very good defense; they are 10th in the NHL in goals-against average, but are 26th in goals for. If Cammalleri cannot get back to his 30 goal, 80 point seasons, the Flames will be dangerously thin behind Olli Jokinen and Jarome Iginla – assuming Iginla’s still around. Feaster doesn’t have to start from scratch with a bunch of draft picks and prospects with no certain future, but going younger certainly wouldn’t hurt.

The Flames were ranked 27^th in last year’s edition of Future Watch, published by The Hockey News and things don’t look much better this year. They did draft Sven Bartschi last summer, who is 10th in the Western Hockey League in scoring despite missing time with injury. Whether it is at the trade deadline or over the summer, it may be time for a change in Cowtown, especially if they barely miss the playoffs once again.

Should the Maple Leafs not make the playoffs this year, it’ll be eight years since their last playoff game. It has taken them six seasons to rebuild into something resembling a playoff team, but it doesn’t have to take that long. The Philadelphia Flyers were horribly mismanaged after the lockout, culminating in a last-place finish and franchise-worst 56 points in 2006-07. First-year GM Paul Holmgren had a lot of work to do, but he wasn’t afraid to make the bold moves and it all started with trading Peter Forsberg at the trade deadline. Over the following summer he acquired Kimmo Timonen and Scott Hartnell from Nashville, Jason Smith and Joffrey Lupul from Edmonton and signed top free agent Daniel Briere. They made it to the Eastern Conference final the next season.

The Flames don’t have to part with Iginla the same way the Flyers needed to cut ties with Forsberg. He was often injured and when he was able to play, was nowhere near the player he once was. Iginla is still a 30-goal scorer and one of the top leaders in the league and they could use his guidance going forward. Sure, he was once the prospect the Flames received for a star player in Joe Nieuwendyk, but with no way to guarantee that type of return again, it is really not worth the risk.

The Flames do have a chance to make the playoffs this season, though it will be a tight race between them, the Coyotes and the Kings for the final two playoff spots in the Western Conference. They just have to make sure they can be something other than a one-and-done playoff team and that it doesn’t take them 15 years to win a round like it did between 1989 and 2004. They spent a decade and a half in no man’s land, they’d better take proper steps to not do it again.

The game sold out and enough people wore dark colors that Kevin Harlan called it a blackout. When the Kings roared to an 11-2 lead, the crowd erupted in a frenzy.  It was hard not to think back to the 2002 playoffs. It would be a real shame if the Kings left town. Unfortunately, that’s a real possibility.

For any fan of any sport, losing a team sucks. What happened at the end in Seattle and what continues to happen in Oklahoma City has to peeve any Sonics fan. After all, they did not take the move nicely: one particularly motivated group even created a two-hour documentary on the events. Even now, they haunt still, showing up at Thunder games in green and gold, waving their jerseys like Jacob Marley rattling his chains.

This is the legacy of the Seattle Supersonics: the former team is a specter that looms over the NBA’s troubled franchises; a cautionary tale for teams looking for new stadiums and a willing crowd for any ownership group looking outside.

This is what’s happening now in Sacramento. The Kings are having a problem with their home arena, the Power Balance Pavilion. By most standards, it’s old, having opened in 1988. It’s a small arena, seating just 17,317 for basketball, marginally ahead of New Orleans for the lowest capacity of any NBA team. But that’s just the capacity. Last year, the Kings drew an average of 13,890 per game, second-lowest in the NBA. Indeed, between 2008 and 2011, they were one of the lowest drawing teams in the league.

And their on-court issues aren’t making them a must-see, either. Thus far in 2012, the Kings are on their second coach of the season and limping around with a record of 10-17. They’re bad on both ends of the floor (ranked 27th in both offense and defense) and have a SRS of -6.79, lowest in the Western Conference. Although they’re a team with some young talent in Tyreke Evans and DeMarcus Cousins, they’re underperforming.

Their problems don’t end on the floor, however. The Kings owners, the Maloof brothers, are trying to find a replacement for the Pavilion.

There’s been talk of building a new stadium for a few years, but it’s complicated. There’s a plan to lease city parking lots to raise money for a new sports and entertainment complex, a move that could bring as much as $200 million. In addition, there’s a report that the city is looking for $80 million from the league and team, basically as a lease agreement for the new arena. But there’s a deadline of March 1 for the city to show the NBA and the Maloof brothers a funding plan for this new arena. If one isn’t in place, the Maloofs can explore moving to another city.

Which brings us to the ghost of the Supersonics.

As it stands now, Seattle’s KeyArena would be the smallest arena in the NBA, with a capacity over 17,000. There hasn’t been much change to the place since the Sonics left town. These days, it’s primarily home to Seattle University’s Redhawks and the WNBA’s Seattle Storm. It’s not exactly a suitable home, except maybe short-term. So why is it being discussed as a possible home for the Kings?

If a team is to come to Seattle, a new arena would be built: exactly what Chrisopher Hansen is planning to do. The multimillionaire Seattle hedge-fund manager told the city he’s looking to build a new arena by Safeco Field, but only after buying and moving a NBA team. The issue of financing is amazingly clear for a pro-sized stadium: Hansen’s group would invest close to $300 million in building the arena.

Per a Seattle Times report, Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn is taking this issue seriously, and so are the people in Seattle. Just read any report of the announcement. The speculation has even crossed over into other sports, with rumors of a NHL team moving to the city as well.

But there isn’t anything set in stone, not yet. The pivotal deadline in Sacramento is still a few boxes down on the calendar and the Maloofs still own the team. And the Sonics jerseys are still seen here and there in the NBA.

There’s a ghost in the Kings’ building, but it’s not just haunting them. The Sonics’ legacy is in every small market, even the safe ones (just like Sacramento was a decade ago). If an owner really wants to move, they can help create the conditions for it to happen.

On that night less than two weeks ago, a pair of Sonics draft picks lit up the Kings: Kevin Durant scored 27 points, Russell Westbrook, 33. But the Kings played well as a team, forcing turnovers and controlling offensive rebounds. They hung on to win 106-101. One battle is over, but the big one’s still looming.

This is going to be big, like Leonardo DiCaprio in the mid-1990s big.

The question, then, is how much of the hype is legitimate and how much stems sadly from our own insatiable desire to propagate a fresh new craze? We may find out as early as this Sunday when the aforementioned Yi Jianlian and his Dallas Mavericks roll into New York City for a matinee date with the Knicks.

But wait a second, how much of the team’s notable success can be genuinely attributed to a man who’s thrived on an element of anonymity that years of subtlety has allowed him? Just as the shock value of unexpected success wanes among even the most raucous of fans, so too will the strategic advantage that surprise brings a player for whom opposing coaches are unprepared.

A great man once told me, “I’m Gordan Giricek, I swear, I once scored 29 points in my NBA debut!” (Ed. note: he never said that). I will never let go.

With all things considered, it’s inspiring to buy in to hype, but hype is a dangerous game. As every jumpshot falls silkily through the net, the legend grows and the clingers-on who’ve already sworn their allegiance to the man grow stronger.

“When did you know,” we’ll ask ourselves when we’re older, reflecting back on this very enlightenment. “Where were you when you first found out?”

Will his cultural impact at least be tangibly measured by then considering that we already sense the ideological shift that he, of such geopolitically-relevant ancestry, represents to the game of basketball?

Ten years from now, heck, ten days from now, the craze that has washed over us like a tide of Tebowian proportions may have completely subsided, leaving in its wake forgotten piles of hastily modified Chris Duhon jerseys and the bitter taste of disappointment, like a dream within a dream.

Will it all have been worth it?

Is it better to have personally and emotionally invested in the prospective success of an unorthodoxly generational hero and lost than to have never done any of those words at all?

The game of basketball is more a marathon than a sprint, and over the course of an entire season especially so. It’s a phenomenon that doesn’t lend itself well to flashes in the pan, but is generous to those who deserve it.

Perhaps our man Yi will slow down as the season progresses – it’s not like just anyone could hit two three-pointers in a single week, after all – but it’s the pace that he settles in to when the dust of pandemonium clears that will determine the man’s historical significance to the NBA.

More avid basketball fans may note a similar storyline unfolding in the Eastern Conference with a certain Jeremy Lin. If even satisfactory at best, Lin’s legacy will be stamped and sealed, but nobody ever said either stamping or sealing would be easy.

Will opposing teams catch on to the charade and stifle the effectiveness of the season’s unlikely hero (proposed headline: Linsanity Lincapacitated)? Will the return of a particularly demanding Carmelo Anthony limit the role he fills on the court (Linsanity Lin The Way)?

Worse yet, would an emphatic decline in production void the first American-born player of Chinese descent’s historical significance? Would the taste of an undrafted Harvard alum making a name for himself as an athlete in Madison Square Garden be any less triumphant for academics everywhere? The Taiwanese pride flooding the globe any less profound?

Sadly – thanks to the same unrelenting hype machine that made the rail-thin 23-year-old the world’s coverboy – the answer is yes, putting all the pressure right square on his bony back.

This time, however, he doesn’t have the element of anonymity working to his advantage, opening the gates once and for all for Yi Jianlianarchy.

Still, no matter how the Lin story ends, we can always appreciate it’s fascinating beginning (and turn it off half-way through if need be, like The Beach).

For better or worse, Céspedes, co-owner of the single-season home run record in Cuba’s Serie Nacional de Béisbol, is now the highest-paid player on the Athletics’ roster.

Curiosity surrounds him, mixed with skepticism.  Both are understandable.  Baseball executives and scouts can take their best guesses - and the A’s certainly hope that their guesses are better than everyone else’s – but the truth is that we do not know how a Cuban power hitter such as Céspedes, in the prime of his offensive career, will transition to the Major Leagues.  The sample size is far too small.

The list of high profile Cuban defectors is dominated by pitchers.  Liván Hernández provided the first major impact, defecting in 1995 and helping the Marlins win the World Series two years later.  In 1996, Rolando Arrojo defected directly before the Summer Olympics and later inked a $7 million contract with Tampa Bay.  In 1997, Orlando Hernández left Cuba via boat, leading to an international rigmarole that involved the United States Coast Guard and U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno before it was through.  Among other notables:  Danys Baéz defected in Winnipeg in 1999, José Contreras in Mexico in 2002 and Aroldis Chapman in the Netherlands in 2009.

A number of infielders have created similar waves, beginning with Rey Ordóñez in 1993, followed by Yuniesky Betancourt in 2003, Yunel Escobar in 2004, Alexei Ramírez in 2007, Dayán Viciedo in 2008 and Adeiny Echavarria in 2009.

But the list of Cuban defectors noted for their slugging stops nearly as soon as it begins.  There’s the talented star-crossed Kendrys Morales, who also daringly escaped his home nation by sea.  After Morales, the number grows scant.

A fan could be forgiven for wondering whether there truly were any recent hitting stars in Cuba, or whether, since the days of Minnie Minoso, Tony Pérez, Tony Oliva and the latter-day duo of Rafael Palmeiro and José Canseco, if the baseball-mad country is producing only pitching and infield talents in the same way that Puerto Rico is noted for its catching talent.

Yet it was not too long ago when Cuba boasted two of the top hitters in the world, Omar Linares and Orestes Kindelán, each well-versed in excelling against international competition. Neither one defected, however, and because of this, their once-feared names are in danger of fading from baseball memory everywhere outside of their home borders.

In 20 seasons of professional Cuban baseball, Omar Linares is credited with batting at a .368 clip while cracking 404 home runs.  In one of his most prominent performances, “El Niño” starred in the gold medal game of the 1996 Olympics against Japan, hitting three homers and notching six RBIs in a 13-8 triumph at Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium.

If they didn’t hear about the great third baseman in ’96, fans certainly learned his name three seasons later.  In the second of two exhibitions between Baltimore and the Cuban National Team, the 31-year-old Linares collected four hits and reached base two further times in an embarrassing 12-6 rout of the American Leaguers on their own home soil.  It was the closest baseball fans ever came to seeing “El Niño” in a Major League setting.

While Linares was a finer all-around hitter, Orestes Kindelán made sure there were no doubts as to who possessed the strongest bat in the Cuban lineup.

The all-time Cuban career leader in home runs, RBIs and total bases, “El Cañon de Dos Rios” swatted nine roundtrippers in as many games at the 1996 Olympics.  One of those blasts reached the third deck and was named by Philip J. Lowry in “Green Cathedrals” as the longest home run ever hit at Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium.

Led in large part by Linares and Kindelán, the Cuban National Team put together an unprecedented, dynastic run of international success.  The Cubans won every World Championship from 1986 until 1998 and went undefeated en route to gold medals at the 1992 and 1996 Summer Olympics, the first Games in which baseball was not merely an exhibition sport.

The dominance ended at the 2000 Summer Games in Sydney. Surprisingly, it was the Netherlands who dealt mighty Cuba its first Olympic defeat, coming in preliminary play. Then, in the gold medal game, young U.S. right-hander Ben Sheets twirled a masterful three-hit complete game shutout, lifting the Americans to a 4-0 giant-killing triumph. Two of the three Cuban hits belonged to third baseman Linares, batting third. Batting fourth was first baseman Kindelán, hitless in three at-bats and victimized for two of Sheets’s five strikeouts.

The gold medal loss was perhaps symbolic; the golden prime of Cuba’s two great batsmen was nearing its end.

In 2002, Omar Linares, Orestes Kindelán and speedy defensive wizard Germán Mesa, another star from the 1990s, were allowed by Cuba’s national baseball commission to sign with a Nippon Professional Baseball club in Japan.

But, like Ruth with the Braves, Aaron with the Brewers or Mays with the Mets, it was evident that the stars’ best days were behind them.

Linares struggled to a .174 average in just 16 games with Chunichi, continued to underperform in 2003, and played one last season before retiring. Kindelán similarly failed to distinguish himself and hung up his spikes after the 2004 campaign.

Yoenis Céspedes, to the benefit of baseball fans everywhere, is coming to the Major Leagues in his prime.

In their prime, Omar Linares and Orestes Kindelán did not face Greg Maddux or Randy Johnson. They brought baseball glory to their country, true, but they did not compete at the highest level like their distinguished countrymen before them.

For nearly half of the 20th century, the major leagues did not feature all of the best baseball players the hemisphere had to offer. Oscar Charleston was not allowed to challenge Walter Johnson in an American League Game. Josh Gibson was kept separate from trying his luck against Dizzy Dean.

The reasons are different but the fact remains: Even with the arrival of Yoenis Céspedes, the best baseball players in the world are still not all allowed to compete in the major leagues.

Not without a boat.

Whether it’s been the more hyped-up players like Jonathan Toews, Steven Stamkos, John Tavares or Taylor Hall, or the under-the-radar surprises such as Jeff Skinner, Logan Couture, Jordan Eberle and Jamie Benn, the league’s young guns seem to be taking over the headlines more and more with each new season, and 2011-12 has been no exception.

Highlighted by Ryan Nugent-Hopkins’ killer start to the season and the stellar play of Devils’ power forward Adam Henrique, both the rookie and sophomore classes have quite a collection of talent and value that team’s have made no mistake in putting to use – and it’s not just the players who can put up numbers, either.

A new breed of responsible, yet often overshadowed crash-and-bang forwards have surfaced over the past few seasons, and it’s this type of player that teams are starting to gun for in the mid-to-late rounds.

Take Los Angeles Kings’ sophomore 21-year-old Kyle Clifford, whose well-rounded game consists of penalty killing, third- and fourth-line minute munching, hitting and dropping the gloves when need be. He earned himself a roster spot last season ahead of the highly-touted and then-King Brayden Schenn, and it’s because of Clifford’s ability to fill essentially any role required of him that he immediately became a key part of L.A.’s depth in the regular and post-season.

This year, similar players in Philadelphia Flyers rookie Zac Rinaldo and recent Chicago Blackhawks addition Andrew Shaw who have also become integral pieces to their playoff-bound clubs.

In 40 games thus far, the 21-year-old Rinaldo has racked up seven points and 156 penalty minutes, and although his average ice time is just 6:37 per game, Rinaldo can be counted upon to step in when his team faces a mid-game injury or simply needs an extra spark.

As for the 20-year-old Shaw, who joined the Blackhawks midway through the season after having a successful start to his pro campaign in Rockford, his five goals and eight points in just 17 games have him ranked 31st among rookies in points, going into Tuesday night. Coincidentally, Shaw’s first NHL fight came in his first NHL game, where he squared off with Rinaldo at center ice.

In addition to the physical youngsters comes a group of successful two-way players who have also turned heads after making their league debuts this season.

Cody Hodgson, Sean Couturier, Luke Adam and Ryan Johansen have all become NHL regulars, and certainly take on a hefty workload despite being so young.

While those players are in the top-12 among rookie scorers and are having success contributing both offensively and defensively (Hodgson leading the group with 15 goals, 31 points and a +8 rating as of Tuesday night), there are several others who could fit that category but haven’t yet had quite the start numbers wise.

Washington’s Cody Eakin has played impressively for the Capitals in 29 games, contributing eight points while remaining a plus player – similar to Tampa’s Brett Connolly and Anaheim’s injured Devante Smith-Pelly, who have also made a name for themselves by playing a balanced and defensively-responsible game.

Although it’s a more difficult task to break into the NHL as a young defenseman, Toronto’s Jake Gardiner, Ottawa’s Jared Cowan, and more recently, Nashville’s Ryan Ellis, have all done so successfully this season as well.

Gardiner and Cowan have had no trouble putting up points, as the pair are both in the top-20 in rookie scoring, while Ellis joined the Preds in late December, and has since scored three goals – two on the power play - and six assists with a plus-eight rating, thanks to two-point night that included the game-winning goal Tuesday against Chicago.

Taking all into consideration, you have to wonder what factors may contribute to the recent spike in 21-and-under talent that seems to be lining rosters throughout the NHL.

My theory? It’s because of the new direction the game is taking coupled with the increased knowledge and tools these athletes are exposed to at a young age.

Instead of signing or calling up veteran minor leaguers, or inserting “enforcers” into the lineup here and there (which, granted, still does occur), teams are finding ways to test out young talent that can contribute in all areas of the game.

It’s no secret that fighting, or at least the roll of the “goon” is being fazed out of the sport, so scouts and minor league coaches are making sure players coming up have the ability to contribute in multiple ways.

Because of the enhanced training and development resources these players have access to, teams may be finding they are more physically ready; prepared to compete at a younger age, and able to fill many different roles, which is a greater benefit to a team’s depth than dressing a one-dimensional player whose career is winding down.

As an alternative to building third and fourth lines with “rental” players or call-ups, it simply makes more sense to give the youngsters a taste of the NHL and have them learning from the veteran mainstays.

Plenty of coaches change teams each year, of course, but few do it after only one season in a job, and even less do so for what’s arguably a lateral move. Graham’s various explanations were rather unsatisfying, so that’s added to the popular disdain for him, and he’s been blasted as an example of coaches taking advantage of student-athletes. However, the real issue goes well beyond Graham or even football coaches in general. The state of college sports at a moment is that there isn’t a lot of room for loyalty on anyone’s part.

It’s easy to blast a coach like Graham for abandoning a program and there’s some rationale behind that. Players came to or stayed at Pitt because of Graham’s promises, so for him to abandon them after one year and to not even have the courtesy to tell them face to face certainly is worthy of some derision.

However, Graham’s far from the only coach to leave after a year (see Hugh Freeze, who jumped to Ole Miss after a single year as Arkansas State’s head coach, but has largely escaped criticism thanks to the new program’s higher profile), and it’s worth pointing out that athletic programs are often as duplicitous and disloyal. Sure, it would be great if coaches held up their end of the contracts they agreed to, but athletic departments often don’t; coaches can be fired for almost anything these days.

Consider the case of Ralph Friedgen. The long-time Maryland coach led the Terrapins from 2001 to 2010, went 75-50 in that time and finished with a 9-4 2010 campaign that saw him named ACC coach of the year. Despite all his loyalty and success, the program promptly fired him (after earlier saying that he would be retained) and replaced him with Randy Edsall, who had just finished leading the University of Connecticut to a surprising BCS berth.

For their pains, the Terrapins promptly regressed to 2-10 in 2011. Friedgen’s case shows the perils of being a coach who isn’t always looking for the next career move. It’s not just long-time coaches who get canned either, as Turner Gill, Larry Porter and Rob Ianello were all fired this fall after just two seasons on the job.

It’s not just coaches and athletic programs that have significant loyalty issues these days, as the same problems extend all the way down the line to players. Plenty of players have gone back on their verbal “commitments,” choosing to attend another school at the last minute and screwing up coaches’ entire recruiting plans in the process. Others decide to transfer the minute they don’t get the playing time they want.

Of course, they’re not entirely at fault either, as many programs are extremely disloyal to players; see the debates around over-signing, gray shirting and releasing players thanks to phony medical issues, dubious practices favoured by many programs (including the BCS champion Alabama Crimson Tide). Just about everyone involved in college football is only looking out for themselves, and that appears to be the cost of doing business these days.

How can this be addressed? Well, solutions need to start at the players’ level, and some progress is being made on that front: rules have been brought in to curb over-signing and gray shirting, and others are being debated. One of the most promising moves from this corner is many Big Ten schools’ decisions to offer four-year scholarships to athletes, rather than the standard practice of renewable one-year scholarships that pave the way for schools to kick athletes to the curb when they’re no longer needed.

So far, the move hasn’t really helped with recruiting as many recruits probably have the deluded belief that things like dubious releases “will never happen to me,” but expanding that practice across the country could be a great start towards improving schools’ loyalty to players.

Improving players’ loyalty to schools is a more difficult proposition, but it might help if there’s more guaranteed for a player at the school they first “commit” to. For coaches, it could be possible to put in a minimum amount of time that they have to serve at a school, but the fear of condemnation of the sort Graham received might be enough on its own. For schools, probably the best tactic could be having alumni and donors encourage them to focus on loyalty, continuity and long-term success instead of instant success.

More loyalty would be nice to see, but it has to be a system-wide change. Otherwise, one group’s loyalty would only benefit the other groups, who could be as disloyal as ever.

A trend toward increased loyalty isn’t going to be a particularly easy change or a particularly quick one, either. Still, it’s worth pointing out that cases like Graham’s are only the tip of the iceberg, and only one part of a problematic system.

If Graham’s decision is worthy of condemnation, and there’s a good case to be made that it is, the wider system should be looked at. The current state of college football favours everyone looking out for their own interests; if we’d like to see increased loyalty, the change has to cover the whole system and reward athletes, coaches and programs for sticking with each other. Otherwise, we’ll continue to get more people acting like Todd Graham.

It references the deciding game of the 1981 National League Championship Series, when Rick Monday of the Los Angeles Dodgers hit a game-winning home run with two outs in the 9th inning off Expo ace Steve Rogers. It gave the Dodgers a 2-1 lead and eventually, the pennant and a trip to the World Series. Ironically, the match was also played on a Monday.

More importantly, it was a disappointing end to Montreal’s memorable season.

2011 marked the 30th anniversary of the Expos’ first and only postseason appearance and the first time the MLB playoffs occurred on international soil; an anniversary that quietly passed.

The 1981 Expos encountered many ups and downs. Then again, the entire 1981 regular season could be given a similar description given the two-month players’ strike.

Because of the large gap created by the work stoppage, MLB decided to use a split-season format. The division leaders before the strike automatically qualified for the playoffs and would play the division winners from the second half to determine the entrants for the League Championship Series.

The first half of the split-season had the Expos in third place with a record of 30-25; four games behind the first place (and playoff bound) Philadelphia Phillies. The second half yielded a 30-23 record and Montreal’s first postseason berth. However, it wasn’t an easy road for the Expos.

The team was hovering around the .500 mark at the beginning of September and appeared to be crumbling. This prompted a managerial change with Jim Fanning replacing the fired Dick Williams. Fanning’s tenure got off to a rough start with three straight losses, but the Expos managed to turn things around, thanks in large part to two winning streaks of seven and four games, respectively.

According to Kevin Glew, baseball writer and publisher of Cooperstowners in Canada, the Expos benefited from having the ’81 season split into two halves.

“As exciting as that Expos team was, they wouldn’t have won the second half division title if the other teams in their division weren’t so mediocre,” says Glew. “The [St. Louis] Cardinals were the only other team to finish above .500 in the National League East in the second half. So I don’t think the 1981 Expos were any better than the 1979 and 1980 clubs that were in contention until the last weekend of their respective seasons.”

Still, Glew points to many strengths on that roster which included two future Hall of Famers in catcher Gary Carter and outfielder Andre Dawson, a young and very talented Tim Raines, a strong starting rotation that included Steve Rogers and the late Charlie Lea, who threw a no-hitter against San Francisco that season, and a bullpen with two outstanding closing options: left-hander Woodie Fryman and the right-hander Jeff Reardon, who was traded to the Expos by the New York Mets earlier in the year.

Montreal captured the first two games of the best-of-five division series against Philadelphia, only to watch the Phillies tie the series. But on October 11 – led by a complete game, six-hit shutout from Rogers – the Expos won the NL East title with a 3-0 victory.

Many Canadians were captivated by the Expos’ success, including actor Donald Sutherland.

“Sutherland is an avid Expo fan,” wrote Sports Illustrated’s Steve Wulf in an October, 1981 article. “So avid that he hasn’t missed a game, home or away, since Sept. 12. It was then that Montreal went on a spree that carried it to the division title.”

Sutherland told Wulf he was afraid to change his clothes.

The excitement was certainly felt inside and outside of Montreal’s Olympic Stadium.

“Even in the late ’90s and early 2000s when the Expos were slowly dying, I always told people that the 10,000 fans at ‘The Big O’ were louder than the 35,000 at the [Toronto] SkyDome,” Glew explains. “There weren’t many of them left at the end, but Expos fans were very passionate. So you can imagine how loud it was with crowds regularly numbering 30,000 to 40,000 and more than 50,000 in the playoffs in 1981.

“If you can recall the national fervor around the Toronto Blue Jays in the early ’90s, that’s what it was like for the Montreal Expos in the early ’80s.”

The best-of-five NLCS would also go the distance. Montreal had a 2-1 series lead. But the Dodgers would come back to win the series, culminating with the infamous Blue Monday game on October 19. Just as noteworthy as Monday’s home run was Jim Fanning’s decision to bring in Rogers in the 9th inning. It was Rogers’ first relief appearance since 1978. Although the move was costly, Glew feels Fanning made the right choice.

“To this day, I still support Fanning’s decision to bring in Rogers over Reardon,” says Glew. “In the deciding game of a playoff series, I want my ace on the mound if he’s available.”

The 1981 Expos were certainly memorable, especially with such a talented roster. Yet the anniversary of the team’s most significant accomplishment passed last year with little fanfare. However, it wasn’t ignored completely.

The Montreal Gazette posted a short article about the Blue Monday game on its website. A handful of bloggers also marked the anniversary, including Montreal Author Mark Patterson.

“Blue Monday was so devastating that it has, deplorably, come to symbolize almost everything about 1981 Montreal Expos,” Patterson wrote on his blog on Oct. 19, 2011. “The loss on Blue Monday was so bad, so ruinous, that apart from the image of [Expo First baseman] Warren Cromartie waving the Canadian flag in Philadelphia, we tend to forget all the games the Expos won in the 1981 playoffs.”

Perhaps the result of the match and its mythic status could explain why there wasn’t any significant coverage of the anniversary. Glew had heard of a possible reunion being organized by Cromartie, but those plans never materialized. He also recognizes why the anniversary of Canada’s first MLB playoff team was – as he puts it – virtually ignored.

“[First] the Expos didn’t win the NLCS and advance to the World Series and [second] the Expos don’t exist anymore,” says Glew. “There is still a relatively small, but hardcore group of Expos fans out there, but many of the team’s fans gave up on the club long before the team left in 2004.

 “Another factor is that there is no real champion for the ’81 club among the players that are still around from that time. Sure, Cromartie sometimes talks about the Expos, but he’s not Dawson or Carter.”

The Montreal Expos may have had a turbulent existence during their final years. However, 1981 and the surrounding baseball seasons were a period when “Nos Amours” were one of the top teams in baseball.

Thanks to the 1994 players’ strike, which derailed what might have been a celebrated playoff run, the 1981 NL East Division championship was Montreal’s biggest on-field achievement in its history. It was also significant for baseball fans in Canada. For the first time, a Canadian team (location-wise, that is) was vying to win the World Series.

It’s a shame there wasn’t more coverage of the 30th anniversary in the mainstream media, but thanks to the memories created by the ’81 team, it wasn’t forgotten.

Unfortunately for Glew, his most vivid memory of the ’81 Expos is Monday’s fatal blow.

“I remember watching that game on TV as an eight-year-old and I felt sick to my stomach when I saw Dawson running after that ball in center field and then running out of room,” Glew recalls. “I remember the camera shots of the Expos dugout after the game. Players had their heads buried in their hands. I wanted to cry.”

And so goes the legend of Blue Monday.

A quiet offseason usually means that a team is now worse than the previous year. However, by doing nothing, these two teams will actually get better.

It is particularly commendable that the Red Sox and Braves were able to avoid a major player overhaul despite both suffering late-season collapses. There was a perceived knee-jerk reaction from the Red Sox in the firing of manager Terry Francona and release of GM Theo Epstein, but these moves had more to do with a desired culture shift than the actual on-field results. The Braves brass stayed loyal to their employees.

With poor seasons from multiple players, the clubs were probably lucky to be in the playoff hunt for as long as they were. This season, both Boston and Atlanta will be relying on a return to form from those they previously signed or developed rather than spending major resources on bringing in new blood.

It should be noted that the definition of “doing nothing” varies with each team. The Braves, while not a small market team, aren’t usually involved in major signings every year, whereas for Red Sox fans, the riches of 2010’s offseason have left them with high expectations. Signing Cody Ross and trading for Andrew Bailey and Ryan Sweeney constitute little more than a blip in an ideal Red Sox offseason.

To be good at doing nothing, you have to be patient and you need faith. For Frank Wren and Ben Cherington it is a faith based on analysis and meticulous evaluation rather than blind hope.

To see why each team did nothing we’ll start in the outfield and work our way in.

After performing like a bona fide superstar in 2010 (7.6 WAR), Carl Crawford played like he had dementia in 2011. It was as though the front office – perhaps out of fear of putting too much pressure on him – instructed his teammates to not inform him that the bat he took up was actually a ladle from the team’s soup lunch. He was awful – 0.2 WAR awful.

Rather than overreact in the same way a Wall Street trader might sell after watching stocks drop, the Red Sox are staying with him. And no, it’s not just because “he can’t get any worse.” While that may be true, it’s because they know by looking at the numbers that he won’t be that bad. Bill James – the father of sabermetrics and current Red Sox employee – has a formula for predicting player performances, and while not perfect, he’s very accurate.

Here’s Bill James’ prediction for Crawford’s 2012 season (for reference I’ve included his 2011 numbers in brackets):

286 AVG (.255), .332 OBP (.289), .436 SLG (.405), 73 RBIs (56), 93 runs (65), and 34 stolen bases (18).

All of which should amount to around four extra wins for the Red Sox.

On the other corner, the Red Sox weren’t getting much help either. Their worst position in 2011 was the one in right field, regardless of what name or number appeared there on a day-to-day basis. Crawford, despite a down year, still flashed signs of brilliance and showed in one series in Detroit that he can very much be the difference between victory and defeat. But right fielders – whether it was J.D. Drew’s attempt to play a full season in slow motion, Mike Cameron’s .149 batting average, or Josh Reddick’s vendetta against balls outside the strike zone – combined to give the Red Sox very little production (note: they did this despite often receiving favorable platoon matchups).

In 2012, the Red Sox will go with two superior platoon guys in Ryan Sweeney and Cody Ross. Both were relatively minor acquisitions but will at least provide the Red Sox with some semblance of performance, with both hitting their opposite-handed pitchers well and playing above average defense.

The Braves had their own disappointment in right field in Jason Heyward. Before Bryce Harper, this guy was the next ‘it’ guy but a down 2011 campaign cooled such predictions. However, the Braves see his lack of production as a combination of two factors: an injury he incurred early in the season and his inability to fully recover from it; as well as a natural adjustment period all young hitters are meant to go through as pitchers adjust to their tendencies. Now healthier and hungrier, Heyward is out to prove doubters wrong. For predictions let’s turn to James again:

.269 AVG (.227), .374 OBP (.319), .457 SLG (.389), 74 RBIs (42), 86 runs (50), and 14 stolen bases (9).

These improved numbers should give the Braves around two extra wins and re-solidify Heyward’s status as an ‘it’ guy. He is still only 23 years old.

On the infield, both the Red Sox and Braves should see better production. The Red Sox will be looking for a healthy season from Kevin Youkilis. Last season he played 120 games and 102 in 2010. The Red Sox will be happy with 130 games from Youkilis, especially if he can regain some of his 2009 form where he racked up 5.9 WAR, in which case he’ll be a major asset to their offense. Here’s the prediction:

.281 AVG (.258), .389 OBP (.373), .489 SLG (.459), 86 RBIs (80), and 87 runs (68).

More importantly, James has him playing 135 games. Obviously stolen bases aren’t required for Youk’s prediction going forward but for the Braves shortstop position, they could be the difference in an upgrade.

Farm product Tyler Pastornicky will be taking over from Alex Gonzalez. Pastornicky, while not a great hitter, will be an upgrade at the position. Gonzalez has the better power numbers but Pastornicky will make less outs and more importantly, steal more bases. He should be good for around 20 swiped bags while Gonzalez rarely racks up more than three. It won’t be a major upgrade, but it could be the difference in a few key September games. The Braves will also see more production out of Pastornicky’s double play partner, Dan Uggla.

Uggla hit more home runs last season than in any season in his career, but he also made more outs. He posted a career low batting average and on base percentages while having his worst defensive season (based on Fangraphs’ fielding statistics). Uggla has never been a defensive whizz (that All-Star game was hard to watch) but if he can continue to hit for power while improving his on-base numbers, he’ll be a force in the Braves’ line-up. Here’s his prediction:

.251 AVG (.233), .337 OBP (.311), .473 SLG (.453), 92 RBIs (82), and 95 runs (88).

The Braves’ offense will be strong, but nothing compared to the Red Sox.

In 2011 the Sox featured the best scoring offense in the majors – leading the league in runs scored, on-base percentage, doubles, total bases and slugging percentage – and with improved contributions from Crawford, right fielders and Youkilis they should be even better in 2012. But if they want to secure a postseason berth and make any kind of run they’ll need a bounce back year from one of their best pitchers, Clay Buchholz.

In 2010 Buchholz won 17 games. Last year, due to a stress fracture in his back, he was restricted to 14 starts. Without him the Red Sox were forced to rely on John Lackey (6.41 ERA), Tim Wakefield (5.12 ERA), and Andrew Miller (5.54 ERA). The back end of their rotation appeared to be auditioning to throw for the home run derby. Buchholz has since been throwing off a mound and appears to have made a full recovery. If the Red Sox can get 25+ starts out of him they’ll be playing past September next year.

By employing a patient and analytical approach – or as it’s more commonly known, doing nothing – both front offices should see their teams enjoy better seasons in 2012. The money saved by not spending on players when they had their own cheaper options available can be used in future offseasons on positions that actually need upgrading.

That’s the situation the Columbus Blue Jackets found themselves in after a summer of great expectations swiftly turned into another season spent waiting for the draft lottery.

After making a number of big splashes in the offseason, the Blue Jackets had playoff aspirations. But an early injury to Jeff Carter and an eight-game suspension to James Wisniewski led to a 0-7-1 start to the year, and just like that, the season was essentially over.

The Blue Jackets are languishing in last place in the league and are not even close to Edmonton for the 29th spot.

The train wreck has spared no one. Trade rumors are swirling around the team, the biggest of which involve captain Rick Nash and the newly-acquired Carter.

If the rumors are to be believed, in the span of less than a year, the Blue Jackets are abandoning their plan to make a run at the playoffs and are instead investing in a major rebuild, likely surrounding rookie Ryan Johansen. And if they are gutting the team, they will be engaging in the worst method of team building: buy high, sell low.

The Blue Jackets traded Jakub Voracek and the eighth-overall pick (used to select Sean Couturier) for Jeff Carter. At this point, after multiple injuries, a perceived poor attitude and sub-par production, Columbus isn’t going to get the same value for Carter as they gave up. Why would they?

Plus, there’s Carter’s contract; the same one that posed no problem in dealing the center in the summer is now looked at as an anchor. Carter is signed through 2022; that’s 10 more seasons at a little more than $5 million a year.

If the Blue Jackets deal Carter now, regardless of his 40-goal talent, they will be receiving 50 cents on the dollar.

If Columbus is truly unhappy with Carter, or vice versa, the team should wait until next season and hope that Carter rebounds with a clean bill of health. It’s much easier to trade someone with a huge contract if they are actually producing. $5 million a year is an awfully nice number for a perennial 30-goal scorer. If Carter starts scoring at that kind of pace, the Blue Jackets won’t get teams low-balling them; they’ll get offers commensurate with a No. 1 center.

The other name floating in the rumor mill is that of Nash, who leads the team in goals and points, but is on pace for only 26 goals and 52 of each – the worst mark of his entire career.

Nash has the fifth-highest cap hit in the league and is signed for the next six seasons. Despite his elite talent, Nash’s contract and his current production are going to make teams hesitant to trade the farm for him.

And if you’re Columbus, why are you willing to trade either Nash or Carter for anything less than top dollar?

If the Blue Jackets really are committed to a rebuild, waiting for a bounce back from either player is essential to ensure the package coming back to Columbus is sufficient enough to warrant trading such game-breaking talents.

Waiting another year before blowing up the roster is the right move for another reason: the Blue Jackets at least owe this group a chance to perform when healthy and with a capable goalie.

Since winning the Rookie of the Year award in 2008-09, Steve Mason has regressed terribly, with this season being beyond bad. Mason’s .881 save percentage is the worst in the league by any goaltender with at least 12 games played, and his 3.53 goals-against average is lower than only Dwayne Roloson’s, a man nearly twice his age.

It doesn’t matter how much the team improved up front, if the last line of defence is the worst in the league, that’s where the team is going to end up.

That’s why the failings of the Blue Jackets this season cannot be solely attributed to the players. Scott Howson must accept responsibility for creating what he thought was a playoff team, then suddenly forgetting to address the hole in net.

It’s unfair to expect the key acquisitions to bring the Blue Jackets to the playoffs when the same goaltender that has failed to provide even average netminding is still backstopping the team.

Ultimately, that’s the most important reason the Blue Jackets must refrain from blowing up the roster, at least for the immediate future. The man who built this calamity is still running the team with the full support of ownership.

If Howson believed this group of players would bring the playoffs to Ohio, he needs to fall on the sword before any of the players. He built the team that has badly underachieved, so allowing him to build another team is just foolish. If you built a team this bad, you have no right to tear it down and start again. He’s had his chance. He’s out.

It’s been a brutally tough year in Columbus, but starting the rebuild now isn’t going to create a long-term winner any sooner. If recent history is any indication, it might just prolong the misery.