Interest in Hank Conger?

[Guest]

Scouting Japanese pitchers isn't different, but the method to obtain them is. The posting fee is substantial.

 

Actually it is different isn't it? They use a smaller ball and that will most likely affect the amount of movement they can get on a larger American baseball won't it? Not as much of an issue for a bigger guy like Darvish, but still something to consider.

 

Has he been observed pitching with the larger baseball?

 

Interesting. Didn't know that.

 

FWIW, I did a Google search and saw this posted somewhere...

 

Weight L   Weight H  Circumference L Circumfrence H
MLB  5     oz   5.25  oz      9 in            9.25 in
NPB  5.002 oz	5.253 oz      9 in            9.29 in

[RynoRules]

I kind of like it. But I don't think that's enough to get Gio. Not if they were wanting Stanton or Morrison from Florida. Maybe add McNutt in there? I guess it's putting a lot of faith in Szczur, in a way. I'd much rather trade him than Brett personally. In fact, if it took Szczur, McNutt, Lake, and Struck, I'd still do it.

 

I don't think the A's would deal Gonzalez without anyone they could put on the MLB roster, and I also picked them instead of going after someone like Danks/Floyd because I think the A's would value Jackson and Flaherty more than others. Maybe it takes McNutt, that's fine, Gonzalez is probably worth it. The example holds as long as it's not a piece from the MLB roster(especially with the pitching depth in this scenario).

 

I realize he was a 5 WAR pitcher last season and 4 the season before, but does Gio's walk rate bother you at all?

 

Re-post - still looking for feedback...

[davell]

It's high, but it's came down 3 straight years. If he can get it down to the 3.5ish per 9 range, he could be elite.

[BeerHere]

I kind of like it. But I don't think that's enough to get Gio. Not if they were wanting Stanton or Morrison from Florida. Maybe add McNutt in there? I guess it's putting a lot of faith in Szczur, in a way. I'd much rather trade him than Brett personally. In fact, if it took Szczur, McNutt, Lake, and Struck, I'd still do it.

 

I don't think the A's would deal Gonzalez without anyone they could put on the MLB roster, and I also picked them instead of going after someone like Danks/Floyd because I think the A's would value Jackson and Flaherty more than others. Maybe it takes McNutt, that's fine, Gonzalez is probably worth it. The example holds as long as it's not a piece from the MLB roster(especially with the pitching depth in this scenario).

 

I realize he was a 5 WAR pitcher last season and 4 the season before, but does Gio's walk rate bother you at all?

 

Re-post - still looking for feedback...

4.1 BB/9 in 2011 is same as 2010. The K's (8.8) and WHIP (1.37) are pretty good and the K/BB rate is over 2. I'd like to get him but not if the cost includes Brett Jackson. McNutt, Struck and one of Szczur/Lake is probably the most I would do.

[dew1679666265]

That may be but I can't think of any Japanese pitchers that have done well. Dice-K was an obvious flop. Irabu was a bust. Wang had one decent season and a bunch of meh. Kuroda? I guess my point is that Darvish will be very expensive. He may be so expensive as to exceed his value if the money could be put to better use elsewhere. I'm not against the Cubs being involved if it means the price is driven up or the Yankees etc.

 

There's not been any Hall of Famers coming over from Japan (pitchers, at least), but there's been a number of players ranging from decent/good to very good.

 

ERA/FIP/xFIP

Hideo Nomo: 4.24/4.23/4.67

Takashi Saito: 2.18/2.65/3.20

Hiroki Kuroda: 3.45/3.55/3.62

Shigetoshi Hasegawa: 3.71/4.39/4.66

[imb]

I kind of like it. But I don't think that's enough to get Gio. Not if they were wanting Stanton or Morrison from Florida. Maybe add McNutt in there? I guess it's putting a lot of faith in Szczur, in a way. I'd much rather trade him than Brett personally. In fact, if it took Szczur, McNutt, Lake, and Struck, I'd still do it.

 

I don't think the A's would deal Gonzalez without anyone they could put on the MLB roster, and I also picked them instead of going after someone like Danks/Floyd because I think the A's would value Jackson and Flaherty more than others. Maybe it takes McNutt, that's fine, Gonzalez is probably worth it. The example holds as long as it's not a piece from the MLB roster(especially with the pitching depth in this scenario).

 

I realize he was a 5 WAR pitcher last season and 4 the season before, but does Gio's walk rate bother you at all?

 

Re-post - still looking for feedback...

4.1 BB/9 in 2011 is same as 2010. The K's (8.8) and WHIP (1.37) are pretty good and the K/BB rate is over 2. I'd like to get him but not if the cost includes Brett Jackson. McNutt, Struck and one of Szczur/Lake is probably the most I would do.

 

a 1.37 WHIP is not good

[Guancous]

There would be 28 other teams making offers for Gio Gonzalez. 21 others could make better offers.

 

The Cubs can only hope that the genius front office can find a Jeff Manship type to round out the pitching staff.

[SweetZombieJesus]

Depends are we talking Phil Nevin 1999-2004?

 

I'd take that over Casey Kotchman.

[davell]

Not Conger related, but since this thread is basically about replacing Geo, Tampa is shaping up like an excellent landing spot for Soto, now that they've traded >aso and have Chirinos as his backup. Soto for Davis or Cobb? Maybe get a C+ guy from them as well?

[Brett]

man, you really need to change the name of your site.

 

this.

 

I missed this earlier.

 

Believe me, I wish the name thing wasn't an issue. Bleacher Nation started just a few months after Bleacher Report - and long before anyone had ever heard of Bleacher Report, or before it had become the nightmarish pile of dreck that it has become. Had I ever known of "The Report" before I started my site, I would have chosen another name. As it was, it was a solid two years of "Bleacher Nation" before I even became aware of "The Report." By then, BN had become a thing, and I wasn't really interested in changing the thing because one of the words in the name was the same as one of the words in the name of another site. At that point, I put my faith in peoples' ability to read more than one word.

 

50% of the time a Bleacher Nation post is linked on a random message board, one of the first three responses is "never listen to anything you read on Bleacher Report," or some such thing. My faith in peoples' ability, it seems, is sometimes overstated.

[Tyrant]

man, you really need to change the name of your site.

 

this.

 

I missed this earlier.

 

Believe me, I wish the name thing wasn't an issue. Bleacher Nation started just a few months after Bleacher Report - and long before anyone had ever heard of Bleacher Report, or before it had become the nightmarish pile of dreck that it has become. Had I ever known of "The Report" before I started my site, I would have chosen another name. As it was, it was a solid two years of "Bleacher Nation" before I even became aware of "The Report." By then, BN had become a thing, and I wasn't really interested in changing the thing because one of the words in the name was the same as one of the words in the name of another site. At that point, I put my faith in peoples' ability to read more than one word.

 

50% of the time a Bleacher Nation post is linked on a random message board, one of the first three responses is "never listen to anything you read on Bleacher Report," or some such thing. My faith in peoples' ability, it seems, is sometimes overstated.

 

"Why should I change when he's the one who sucks?"

[Brett]

man, you really need to change the name of your site.

 

this.

 

I missed this earlier.

 

Believe me, I wish the name thing wasn't an issue. Bleacher Nation started just a few months after Bleacher Report - and long before anyone had ever heard of Bleacher Report, or before it had become the nightmarish pile of dreck that it has become. Had I ever known of "The Report" before I started my site, I would have chosen another name. As it was, it was a solid two years of "Bleacher Nation" before I even became aware of "The Report." By then, BN had become a thing, and I wasn't really interested in changing the thing because one of the words in the name was the same as one of the words in the name of another site. At that point, I put my faith in peoples' ability to read more than one word.

 

50% of the time a Bleacher Nation post is linked on a random message board, one of the first three responses is "never listen to anything you read on Bleacher Report," or some such thing. My faith in peoples' ability, it seems, is sometimes overstated.

 

"Why should I change when he's the one who sucks?"

 

I mean... yeah. Kind of.

[jersey cubs fan]

man, you really need to change the name of your site.

 

this.

 

I missed this earlier.

 

Believe me, I wish the name thing wasn't an issue. Bleacher Nation started just a few months after Bleacher Report - and long before anyone had ever heard of Bleacher Report, or before it had become the nightmarish pile of dreck that it has become. Had I ever known of "The Report" before I started my site, I would have chosen another name. As it was, it was a solid two years of "Bleacher Nation" before I even became aware of "The Report." By then, BN had become a thing, and I wasn't really interested in changing the thing because one of the words in the name was the same as one of the words in the name of another site. At that point, I put my faith in peoples' ability to read more than one word.

 

50% of the time a Bleacher Nation post is linked on a random message board, one of the first three responses is "never listen to anything you read on Bleacher Report," or some such thing. My faith in peoples' ability, it seems, is sometimes overstated.

 

That's a pretty condescending view of your potential viewers. It's not a matter of reading more than one word, it's remembering which Bleacher "random noun" site is completely worthless. Considering how meaningless either site is to any one person in the grand scheme of things, it's not wise to put the onus on the reader to remember which one is which if you want to build and solidify your brand.

[treebird]

man, you really need to change the name of your site.

 

this.

 

I missed this earlier.

 

Believe me, I wish the name thing wasn't an issue. Bleacher Nation started just a few months after Bleacher Report - and long before anyone had ever heard of Bleacher Report, or before it had become the nightmarish pile of dreck that it has become. Had I ever known of "The Report" before I started my site, I would have chosen another name. As it was, it was a solid two years of "Bleacher Nation" before I even became aware of "The Report." By then, BN had become a thing, and I wasn't really interested in changing the thing because one of the words in the name was the same as one of the words in the name of another site. At that point, I put my faith in peoples' ability to read more than one word.

 

50% of the time a Bleacher Nation post is linked on a random message board, one of the first three responses is "never listen to anything you read on Bleacher Report," or some such thing. My faith in peoples' ability, it seems, is sometimes overstated.

 

That's a pretty condescending view of your potential viewers. It's not a matter of reading more than one word, it's remembering which Bleacher "random noun" site is completely worthless. Considering how meaningless either site is to any one person in the grand scheme of things, it's not wise to put the onus on the reader to remember which one is which if you want to build and solidify your brand.

 

agreed. it sucks that you have to do it, but you have to do it. as terrible as bleacher report it, it's definitely a bigger name than you, and wishing people who know nothing of you would differentiate doesn't make it so.

[Brett]

man, you really need to change the name of your site.

 

this.

 

I missed this earlier.

 

Believe me, I wish the name thing wasn't an issue. Bleacher Nation started just a few months after Bleacher Report - and long before anyone had ever heard of Bleacher Report, or before it had become the nightmarish pile of dreck that it has become. Had I ever known of "The Report" before I started my site, I would have chosen another name. As it was, it was a solid two years of "Bleacher Nation" before I even became aware of "The Report." By then, BN had become a thing, and I wasn't really interested in changing the thing because one of the words in the name was the same as one of the words in the name of another site. At that point, I put my faith in peoples' ability to read more than one word.

 

50% of the time a Bleacher Nation post is linked on a random message board, one of the first three responses is "never listen to anything you read on Bleacher Report," or some such thing. My faith in peoples' ability, it seems, is sometimes overstated.

 

That's a pretty condescending view of your potential viewers. It's not a matter of reading more than one word, it's remembering which Bleacher "random noun" site is completely worthless. Considering how meaningless either site is to any one person in the grand scheme of things, it's not wise to put the onus on the reader to remember which one is which if you want to build and solidify your brand.

 

agreed. it sucks that you have to do it, but you have to do it. as terrible as bleacher report it, it's definitely a bigger name than you, and wishing people who know nothing of you would differentiate doesn't make it so.

 

While I appreciate your thoughts (sincerely - this is giving me some valuable food for thought), I disagree - and definitely disagree that anything I said condescends potential readers (I'm criticizing anyone who reads "Bleacher Nation" as "Bleacher Report" when posted somewhere on the web - I don't think that's an unfair or condescending criticism. It's just a criticism). The naming overlap is unfortunate, but I deal with it as best I can, day by day - changing the site's name now would, in my best estimation, do more harm than good. If "Bleacher Report" were a Chicago Cubs blog, I'd be in 100% agreement.

[Tyrant]

 

While I appreciate your thoughts (sincerely - this is giving me some valuable food for thought), I disagree - and definitely disagree that anything I said condescends potential readers (I'm criticizing anyone who reads "Bleacher Nation" as "Bleacher Report" when posted somewhere on the web - I don't think that's an unfair or condescending criticism. It's just a criticism). The naming overlap is unfortunate, but I deal with it as best I can, day by day - changing the site's name now would, in my best estimation, do more harm than good. If "Bleacher Report" were a Chicago Cubs blog, I'd be in 100% agreement.

 

Re-branding is always a challenge, but it would be worth it in the long run. You have a great site with lots of good content and visitor interaction. Those people aren't going to go anywhere because of a name change. You might have a few short-term hiccups with SEO and similar things, but that can be remedied with a little planning.

 

It's no one's fault that people confuse you with Bleacher Report, it's just reality. I'd want to separate myself from that, especially if I had a blog like yours with some reliable sources and a chance to report viable rumors and break stories. Just my two cents.

[jersey cubs fan]

definitely disagree that anything I said condescends potential readers (I'm criticizing anyone who reads "Bleacher Nation" as "Bleacher Report" when posted somewhere on the web - I don't think that's an unfair or condescending criticism. It's just a criticism).

 

You are looking at this as the guy who started the site, of course you know the difference. But you are miniscule, and most people will only have vaguely heard about some bleacher something or other site that sucks balls. So they will lump you in with them and it's your fault, not theirs, for thinking people should automatically distinguish your site as valid. It's not a matter of people not being able to read the words. It's the fact that they are incredibly similar names, and one of them is much larger and very much regarded as junk. If you don't want to change it, that's fine, but you're fooling yourself if you think the only reason they would be identified together is because some careless readers don't automatically know the difference between bleacher nation and bleacher report.

[C.C.]

I wouldn't change the name.

 

I know in the tech world there's tons of similar sites with similar names, nobody gets confused.

[davearm2]

definitely disagree that anything I said condescends potential readers (I'm criticizing anyone who reads "Bleacher Nation" as "Bleacher Report" when posted somewhere on the web - I don't think that's an unfair or condescending criticism. It's just a criticism).

 

You are looking at this as the guy who started the site, of course you know the difference. But you are miniscule, and most people will only have vaguely heard about some bleacher something or other site that sucks balls. So they will lump you in with them and it's your fault, not theirs, for thinking people should automatically distinguish your site as valid. It's not a matter of people not being able to read the words. It's the fact that they are incredibly similar names, and one of them is much larger and very much regarded as junk. If you don't want to change it, that's fine, but you're fooling yourself if you think the only reason they would be identified together is because some careless readers don't automatically know the difference between bleacher nation and bleacher report.

FWIW, I can never remember which one is which :shrug:

[Brett]

definitely disagree that anything I said condescends potential readers (I'm criticizing anyone who reads "Bleacher Nation" as "Bleacher Report" when posted somewhere on the web - I don't think that's an unfair or condescending criticism. It's just a criticism).

 

You are looking at this as the guy who started the site, of course you know the difference. But you are miniscule, and most people will only have vaguely heard about some bleacher something or other site that sucks balls. So they will lump you in with them and it's your fault, not theirs, for thinking people should automatically distinguish your site as valid. It's not a matter of people not being able to read the words. It's the fact that they are incredibly similar names, and one of them is much larger and very much regarded as junk. If you don't want to change it, that's fine, but you're fooling yourself if you think the only reason they would be identified together is because some careless readers don't automatically know the difference between bleacher nation and bleacher report.

FWIW, I can never remember which one is which :shrug:

 

This is all helpful feedback - even if I don't decide to change the name (I think the damage caused by the confusion is a bit overstated (including by me), and I think the damage caused by changing the name is understated), it's very valuable to have these things in the back of my mind.

 

In my defense, my original comment had nothing to do with requiring or assuming that people automatically know the difference between "Bleacher Report" (crap) and "Bleacher Nation" (hopefully moderately useful Cubs site). It's about people having the link that says "Bleacher Nation" right in front of them and saying "Bleacher Report sucks. Don't go there." That is an issue of people not reading words.

 

The situation more like what you're describing, when automatic recognition is the problem, is where a person sees a Bleacher Nation link and says "Bleacher Nation sucks, don't go there" when they were actually thinking of Bleacher Report (because, as you note, all they know is "Bleacher something or other sucks, and this is probably that Bleacher something or other.") And, in that situation, you're spot on - I'm screwed a bit, unless I change the name (or continue to do my best to get the word out where confusion is occurring).

 

To dave's point: that kind of cuts both ways. If you're vaguely aware of both, but haven't become a "reader" of Bleacher Nation (i.e., a regular visitor, who, by definition, knows the difference between the two), it's hard to imagine a scenario where a different name would have somehow made you a reader. The name confusion issue is about eyes that never come to the site in the first place (because they think, "Bleacher Report? I'd never click onto that crap"), not about eyes that have come to the site and decided it wasn't for them.

 

I didn't mean to hijack the thread into a discussion on branding. A genuine thanks for the thoughts.

[Vanilla Ice]

Honestly, if you weren't a poster here, I still would not know the difference

[Butterscup1679666578]

i agree with rob van winkle