3 comments Let's Review Some Bleacher Report Craziness

Anytime I go to Bleacher Report I get hit with a massive amount of lists and headlines that read something like, "The Top 25 reasons the Mets are the worst franchise in MLB history," "The Top 10 Ways the NFL Is a Communist League," or Bleacher Report has linked a report from another site with a headline that reads "Top NFL quarterback may require surgery again," when the story is about Peyton Manning undergoing a minor surgery from CBSSports.com. I can't figure out what the site is really about. It doesn't really contain breaking information nor does it contain really a report on anything. I think Bleacher Report exists mostly for people who enjoys lists and enjoying readings lists in the form of a slideshow.

I have approximately 102 articles linked from Bleacher Report and I thought I would review the lists and articles today of some of those. It is just a whole lot of crazy. But first, you have to take off your thinking caps.

The first list/article is "James Jones and 10 Backups Ready to Start." The key point is these are backups ready to start. I am assuming start doesn't mean "be a role player," but the author doesn't seem to understand his own title, as you will see. Of course the title also sounds like a children's book about a Pee-Wee upstart football team, but that's beside the point.

If he becomes an unrestricted free agent, Jones will command much attention on the open market. The 27-year-old has progressed steadily in the Packers offense in his three years, catching a combined 10 touchdowns for 1,119 yards over the last two years.

That's like almost 600 yards per year! For a 27 year old? Where I can sign to overpay this James Jones guy?

Let's begin the slideshow!

Darren Sproles- running back

Darren Sproles will never be a starter in the NFL. He is too small to be a starter for an NFL team. He has never shown on a consistent basis he can handle being the major ball carrier for a team.

The 27-year-old has long been a special teams star for the San Diego Chargers but has been completely underutilized on offense.

He turned 28 four days after this got posted. Over the last four seasons Sproles has averaged 6 touches on offense per game. Perhaps he is underutilized.

In his 204 rushing attempts since earning a semi-prominent role in 2008, Sproles has averaged 4.3 yards a carry.

This is probably Sproles ceiling and why he should be used as a change-of-pace back and not a starter. There is a point where a team gets diminished returns on a running back, especially for a smaller back like Sproles. Sproles has had 204 carries in four years. Imagine him getting 204 carries in a season, which is a little less than an NFL starter at running back would probably get. I would guess the yards per carry average would dip, so I don't think he is ready to start for an NFL team...unless he still isn't getting the majority of the carries.

Sproles certainly doesn't have the size or strength necessary to be a lead back or a between the tackles type of guy who you can continuously feed it too,

So Sproles isn't a backup who is ready to be a starter? So why the hell is he on a list of players who are backups that are ready to be starters? Please tell me why.

but he's been far undervalued playing for the Chargers to this point.

Which is fine, if this were a slideshow of "Players who are undervalued," but this is a list of backups who are ready to be starters and Sproles isn't ready to be a starter. So why is he on the list? Only at Bleacher Report...

When given the rock in Oakland, Bush has shown flashes of brilliance.

He led to the Raiders to a victory with 177 yards on 27 carries with two touchdowns in the final game of the 2008 season which denied the Tampa Bay Buccaneers a playoff spot.

Whoever lands him has a massive breakout candidate on their roster.

He is talking about Michael Bush. His college statistics are quoted and then one game FROM THREE YEARS AGO is the full reasoning for why Bush is ready to be a starter. That's it. That's all we get. So the reasoning goes, "Bush was a great running back his junior year in college and had one good game in the NFL, so he should be a starter somewhere."

Now the author, Aaron Dodge, moves on to Tarvaris Jackson...another player who is "ready to start."

I'm just not sold on this guy's potential being shot, and I believe he's worth a look by a team in need of a quarterback who could apply pressure to their incumbent.

Apply pressure to the incumbent, but not take the job of the incumbent possibly. So is he ready to be an NFL starter or not? Yes, I'm probably nitpicking, and yes, I am enjoying it.

Then Marc Bulger is mentioned. Which is just laughable since Bulger used to be a starter in the NFL and isn't anymore. I'm not sure how a guy who was a starter in the NFL and is now 34 years old can be listed as a backup ready to start. Whatever, this is a list that includes players which are admittedly (by the author) not capable of starting so my expectations are too great anyway.

Now we discuss Lance Moore a little bit.

Moore combined for 145 receptions, 1,691 yards and 18 touchdowns in the Drew Brees led offense. He's the perfect target for quarterbacks and a great target for teams looking for a down field threat.

Lance Moore is the perfect down field threat as long as a team isn't looking for a receiver who is a threat down field. See, because Moore hasn't shown he is capable of that. In 2010, Moore had 15.8% of his targets classified as deep attempts. It was 20.0% in 2008. That's very near the bottom on a list of receivers who had as many passes targeted to him as Moore did. He is a good receiver, but a team looking for a deep threat should look another way.

Here is another great Bleacher Report article entitled "Why Cam Newton's Ceiling is Higher Than You Think."

So not only am I going to learn what Cam Newton's ceiling truly is, but I will also learn the author, Chris G., can read my mind and knows exactly what I believe Cam Newton's ceiling is. I hadn't even thought about Cam Newton's ceiling, yet it is higher than I didn't think it was.

Now that I have thought about Cam Newton's ceiling, I think of it as being around what Daunte Culpepper was in his prime in Minnesota or he can be a quarterback similar to Ben Roethlisberger. I'm not saying Newton will be Culpepper nor am I saying he will ever win a Super Bowl, but I think that's about what Newton can be as his ceiling, which he probably will never reach. He is a big quarterback like Roethlisberger and can scramble like Culpepper could. I don't see how Newton could have a higher ceiling than that. So, let's see why Newton's ceiling is actually higher than what I think.

Spoiler alert: We need never find this out.

The naysayers will bring up all of the concerns and ignore his accomplishments while in college,

Considering he is a Heisman Trophy winning quarterback, the odds of him succeeding aren't very good based just on that. Throw in the fact he didn't play in a pro-style offense in college, didn't stick at one college for a long period of time and he has some character concerns and the naysayers have a lot to naysay about.

Jason White, Gino Torretta, Eric Crouch, and Ken Dorsey all accomplished a lot of things in college as well. Naysayers aren't ignoring Newton's college accomplishments, just correctly recognizing this doesn't mean he will be successful in the NFL.

Who could blame them? He is the prototypical quarterback.

Newton is big (think Roethlisberger), standing at 6'5" and weighing 248 pounds. His size allows him to beat defenders almost effortlessly.

Newton being big and being the prototypical quarterback in size doesn't mean he will succeed nor does it mean his ceiling is higher than I expected.

He is able to stand tall behind his line and make throws from the pocket. But if things break down, he can also make a play while on the run. Of course, he can also make plays with his feet, and has the ability to power through defenders or outrun them with his 4.58 speed.

All of the physical traits in the world will not win football games, though, as best summed up in the movie Little Giants:

"Just remember, football is 80 percent mental and 40 percent physical."

"You know all those positive things about Cam Newton's size and how it will translate well to the NFL? Forget about them because I am going to use a quote saying they aren't the majority of what makes a quarterback great. I have successfully just proven nothing."

Football is a mental game, and that is Newton’s shortfall so far, even though the physical aspects are already there. If he can get his mental makeup to equal his physical prowess, the sky is the limit.

So Cam Newton's ceiling is higher than I think because Cam Newton lacks the traits that makes a great quarterback and if he ever gets these traits then he will be a great NFL quarterback. That's not a question posed by me, it appears to be a statement by the author. Cam Newton's ceiling is higher than I think because if he ever gets the mental part of the game down he will be a competent NFL quarterback. Chris G. must think I have a low opinion of Newton's ceiling.

Newton is a charismatic leader in the huddle, and thrives for the moment under the spotlight. He is calm and collected under pressure, and is willing to play through pain to win.

So why does Cam Newton have a higher ceiling than I think? Isn't the argument being made just an argument he will be a good NFL quarterback?

These intangibles cannot be measured,

Mostly because intangibles can't be measured. That's why their intangible.

and they set Newton apart from other rookie quarterbacks.

So the intangibles that can't be measured set him apart from other rookie quarterbacks. What if, and I am just pretending here, the NFL didn't just consist of teams with rookie quarterbacks. I know that is a pure fantasy, but let's say a team had a veteran quarterback. How would Newton stack up against them, since those proven veterans are who he will be compared to in order to be thought of as an elite quarterback and to exceed what I believe to be his ceiling?

Newton will be able to get by on physical talent at first, and once he comprehends the intricacies of the NFL, he will join the elite and take his Panthers to the next level.

Great. I guess this leaves me with the basic question of "Why didn't you tell me why Cam Newton's ceiling is higher than I think?" Saying he will be a great quarterback in the NFL because of factors we already know, doesn't address the issue of expectations and how Newton will exceed those.

Before I get to the next article, the good part about Bleacher Report is I could probably do a post per day about stuff written on the site. There are tons of articles under each category for every major sports team. So I am just scratching the surface, though I don't plan on covering Bleacher Report all that often, so don't worry about this blog turning into "Fire Bleacher Report."

Let's look at some trades the Lakers could make to improve their squad for next season. The best part is these are "non-rumored" trades the Lakers should make. Whatever that means. Does this column count as a "rumor?" I love Bleacher Report potential trade columns. It is rosterbation at its finest and least eloquent. Please know the guy who wrote this is a Lakers fan, so we should just be happy he doesn't have Dwight Howard and Chris Paul coming to Los Angeles in a three team deal for Steve Blake, a first round pick and Lamar Odom.

These are trades I think the team should seriously consider. They could prove to be the slight tweak that this stellar club needs to get it back into serious contention next fall.

Right now, an intern for the Lakers is surfing through Bleacher Report and sees this article. He prints the article---I'm sorry, slideshow---and then runs down to Mitch Kupchak's office telling him the Lakers should seriously consider these trades. This intern then gets fired, though he wasn't getting paid for interning and there was no reason other than this to fire him.

Aaron Afflalo, Denver Nuggets

Absolutely. The first player the Lakers should trade for is Aaron Afflalo. The only small speed bump in this plan is that Afflalo is a restricted free agent, so Afflalo would have to sign with the Nuggets before they could trade him. It's a small problem the Nuggets don't currently have the rights to Afflalo to be in a position to trade him, I do realize this, but it sounds so cool for the Lakers to trade for him.

Still, if they get something solid in return (Ronn Artest and one of the two guards the Lakers drafted), Denver may agree to such a trade.

I'm guessing Ronn Artest is Ron Artest's younger and less expensive brother. Also, I'm not sure the Nuggets would have an interest in a point guard drafted in the second round (besides the fact it is a player drafted in the second round who they could have taken in the NBA Draft if they wanted to) considering they have Ty Lawson and just traded for Andre Miller.

Jrue Holiday, Philadelphia 76ers

We all know the 76ers are eager to give up a young point guard who seems to have a ton of potential.

He averaged over 35 minutes of playing time and 14 points per game on shooting of 45 percent from the field and a very respectable 37 percent from beyond the arc.

More importantly, Holiday is a true point guard; he averaged 6.5 assists last year, which means that he accounted for close to 30 points a game between his scoring and passing for points.

Why would any NBA team want a player like that when they can take an aging forward-hybrid to add to their already large stable of forwards?

Lamar Odom has been rumored as a piece to send to Philadelphia in exchange for Andre Iguodala. How about L.O. and one of the draft picks for Holiday and veteran forward Andres Nocioni?

How about not? The Odom for Iguodala trade would make sense (to an extent) because the Sixers would be getting rid of a small forward and could get back a more versatile forward in return. Still, that trade doesn't make too much sense because then the Sixers have the same problem they had with Iguodala. They would have an expensive forward and still haven't fixed the fact they need a center.

So Odom and Holiday would probably be the worst trade possible for the Sixers because they would gain another forward and lose a guard. So now they have more forwards than they originally had and need more guard help. Small details, I know, the fact the other team may not want to make this trade with the Lakers.

Holiday has the potential to be really good. Philadelphia knows that, and so it could be a tough one to pull off.

I would venture to say any trade that doesn't include Bynum for Holiday is a no-go for Philadelphia.

Jameer Nelson, Orlando Magic

Nelson makes just under $8 million a year, a lot in Orlando, but not too bad in Los Angeles.

?????

Don't NBA teams all play by the same cap rules? Or are there separate cap rules for the Lakers I haven't heard about?

What's most interesting is the author of this slideshow doesn't suggest what the Lakers should give up for this trade. He just says the Lakers should trade for Jameer Nelson. Isn't part of suggesting trades that could be made, actually suggesting the trade that should be made? I can't just say, the Celtics should trade for Player X and not say who the Celtics should give up on their roster for Player X and expect it to be a serious trade thought.

Devin Harris, Utah Jazz

With a salary of over $9.3 million this coming season and $8.5 million in 2012-13, Harris for Lamar Odom and one of the Lakers draft pick guards would seem to make a lot of sense for both teams,

It would make sense for both teams, except for the Jazz. They would have another forward to compete with Paul Millsaps, Derrick Favors and Al Jefferson for playing time and they wouldn't really have a point guard. Also, and I can't emphasize this enough, NO ONE WANTS YOUR SHITTY SECOND ROUND PICK POINT GUARDS RIGHT NOW. STOP SUGGESTING THIS.

although it could leave the Jazz a bit thin at the point. Their two other guards, Earl Watson and Ronnie Price, become free agents on Friday,

So other than the trade wouldn't work out for the Jazz, they wouldn't have a point guard on the roster, and would have too many forwards, this trade is just splendid.

The last slideshow is another exercise in rosterbation. This one is titled "Atlanta Braves: 5 Trades That Could Improve the Team at Trade Deadline." The important part is "improve" the team. You will find this is a concept the author continuously struggles understanding since he only suggests minor adjustments to the team's bench mostly.

Despite their best efforts, the Braves are having trouble chipping away at the Phillies' division lead. Much of that could be blamed on the middling offensive production from positions like 2B, SS and CF.

Much of the failures of the offense, thus far, can be pointed towards the lack of adequate backups at the positions listed previously.

So let me get this straight. The problem doesn't lie in the sub 0.700 OPS from three starters in the Braves lineup, but the problem lies in the backups to these players? You know, the guys who don't play as often...those are the guys to blame for the lack of offense? I'm not buying this bullshit. The problem is the starters at those positions.

So already this column starts off on a faulty premise. Apparently the idea is if the Braves upgrade their backups, the starters will begin playing well by default. I don't buy this idea.

Trade Scott Linebrink to the Rangers

You may ask, "but what if the Rangers don't want Scott Linebrink?" That's completely irrelevant. They're getting Scott Linebrink whether they want him or not.

I have been quite pleased with his contributions, not only in tight spots, but also when the team needs him to eat a couple of innings to save other arms.

Linebrink has pitched two or more innings exactly three times this year. He averages less than an inning per appearance.

Scott Linebrink, having a solid season, should have a decent amount of value to teams not willing to pay premium prices for other veteran relievers like Heath Bell or perhaps K-Rod.

See, the solution to making the Braves offense better is to weaken the strength of the bullpen. This will show the Braves hitters that there is no longer a cushion and they will immediately begin scoring runs. No worries though, this reliever problem is addressed...

If we are to make this trade, it would open up a spot for a reliever—a spot we could use to promote Cory Gearrin back to the major leagues. It would also relieve the Braves payroll of approximately $680,000.

So the Braves could save money! That would make the team better? What great reward would the Braves get in return for weakening their bullpen and saving money?

Potential Return: A mid-level prospect with some decent upside, but needs a few more years.

Sounds tempting doesn't it? Not only will the Braves get to weaken their bullpen, but they will get a prospect in return that will not help the Braves offensive woes at all! It's a lose-lose proposition.

Acquire Reed Johnson from the Chicago Cubs

I want to make it perfectly clear that I do know that he is currently playing well beyond his skill set in Chicago where he is hitting .337, .382, .584.

Despite that disclaimer, Reed Johnson is a career .283, .342, .415 hitter, so there shouldn't be too much of a drop off when he starts to slow down.

Actually yes, that is a large drop off back to his career averages. His current average is 19% higher than his career average, his OBP is 12% higher than his career average, and his slugging percentage is nearly 41% higher than his career average. Those are pretty notable increases. It's the difference in a hitter OPSing 0.966 and a hitter OPSing 0.757. It is the difference in having Ryan Braun in the outfield versus having Kosuke Fukodome in the outfield.

He's not your typical defensive-minded fourth outfielder, and he's really best used in left field.

Which doesn't do much for the whole center field problem (in terms of offensive) the Braves are experiencing.

Trade Nate McLouth to the Seattle Mariners

First, the Braves will have to pitch in a good amount of Nate McLouth's remaining salary. At the trade deadline, Nate McLouth's remaining salary will be approximately $2.2 million. To move him, the Braves will have to pay at least half of the salary.

Depending on what they got in return, the Braves would pay half of the salary or all of the salary. Still, why trade McLouth and pay his remaining salary when he is a free agent after this year? You aren't going to get much in return for him and then it leaves a gaping hole in centerfield even more gaping. Let's think before we rosterbate so we don't end up hurting someone.

Second, the Braves shall expect nothing of worth or value in the trade. This is simply a move geared towards relieving themselves of a little bit of salary.

I'm not sure I agree with the author, Bryce Sumida, and his idea of a salary dump. Why would the Braves trade a centerfielder, and pay most of his salary, when he is going to be a free agent after this year and he is the best centerfielder on the roster AND the Braves have a hole in centerfield? So it makes sense to just make centerfield even more terrible to save a few million on a player whose contract runs out after this season.

The Braves have a $1.65 million buyout if they don't pick up McLouth's option for 2012, which would be nice to avoid, but he is a free agent after this year which means they don't have to pay him anymore than that. So the added benefit of trading McLouth to save a maximum of $3.85 million (that's if the Mariners took on all of his salary for the rest of the year and the Braves didn't have to buyout McLouth), and making the Braves worse at the trade deadline, is you get a worthless player in return. So weakening the team in centerfield is going to make the team better at the trade deadline? Not unless the money is used to trade for another centerfielder.

Spoiler alert: This is where Michael Bourn will come into play. Don't act like this isn't really exciting.

As odd as it sounds, McLouth could provide them an upgrade over their current situations. At the very least, he gives them more options.

As well as give the Braves fewer options in centerfield if the Braves can't move a trade for another centerfielder.

Moving McLouth in the prescribed deal would alleviate the Braves of $1 million on the payroll.

And we all know playoff contending teams are often seen dumping salary in an effort to make their team better that year. Isn't that something teams that aren't playing for a playoff spot do? How would this make the Braves a better team at the trade deadline?

Acquire Michael Bourn from the Houston Astros

Bourn is the prototypical "speedster" that I have come to despise, at least in terms of giving up good prospects and money for.

I'll be honest. I'm not that big of a Michael Bourn fan, as I feel he will become overpaid through arbitration in 2012.

You are not doing a very good job of convincing me this is a smart move by reinforcing my exact feelings on why trading for Michael Bourn isn't a great idea. The best part is Sumida doesn't ever refute these feelings, he just basically says, "fuck it, the Braves should make the trade anyway."

However, I am a fan of improving the club in whatever way possible.

Which apparently Bourn will not do in the author's opinion.

I can't deny Bourn would provide an improvement over our current options in center field without sacrificing good defense.

Bourn is fast. That's a great attribute. He still only has an OPS around .750, which would be a career high by the way, and is due for arbitration next year. So because the bar is lowered, Bourn is a huge upgrade and that's why the Braves should overpay for him.

He uses his speed to get on, get over and run down fly balls in the outfield. If Bourn's speed were to take a step backwards at any point, his value would nose dive.

Good thing he isn't turning 29 years old after this season! Wait, he is?

I don't have a huge problem with Bourn, it is what Sumida wants to give up for Michael Bourn. Remember, Bourn is (admitted by the author) as a one-dimensional player whose entire value is in his ability to steal bases.

However, as a 1.5 season rental, that should be none of our concern as we'll be employing Bourn at the peak of his usefulness.

Bourn, however, will be the one they likely move, dangling him for a lower price tag than the one that would be required to land Pence.

A lower price? I wonder what that suggested lower price would be?

Potential Cost: Randall Delgado, Jordan Schafer and Brett Oberholtzer.

The Braves would only have to give up their #2 pitching prospect, and the #35 rated prospect by Baseball America prior to this year, who is only 21 years old for a 1.5 year rental outfielder whose main (only) positive attribute? You would think a pitching prospect who is less than a year from being MLB-ready would fetch more than a one-dimensional speedster, but you would be wrong!

So this is the lower price? The #2 prospect in the Braves system?

That's not all everyone! The Braves would also then give up two more prospects (though Jordan Schafer isn't a prospect at this point) for the rights to Bourn for 1.5 years.

Maybe the Braves should throw in Tommy Hanson as well, to sweeten the deal for the Astros.

It may be unlikely to have so many moving parts at the deadline, but it's both plausible and feasible.

Read that sentence again and see how it doesn't make a damn bit of sense. So it may not be likely these trades could happen, but it is reasonable and likely these trades could happen. I think Sumida needs access to a dictionary in order to understand he just wrote a sentence saying it was unlikely this many moving parts could happen at the trade deadline, but that it was likely this many moving parts could happen at the trade deadline. This makes not of sense.

Bleacher Report everyone! It's here to make you feel smarter.