There was some consensus behind sponsoring a player on baseball-reference.com. There's enough money in the WGOM piggy bank that if the community wants it, we could sponsor a player or two.
First, a poll whether the community wants to do it. I'm thinking the total amount spent on sponsoring pages will be $50.
Should we sponsor some pages on B-R.com?
- Yes (71%, 20 Votes)
- No (29%, 8 Votes)
Total Voters: 28
Loading ...While we're here, we should also discuss who or what to sponsor. Nominate your choices below and in a few days, I'll put up another poll to vote on what will actually be sponsored. Also, don't forget the message that will be displayed with the sponsoring. We have 255 characters to abuse.
I love the Earl Battey suggestion. We could add Scott Ullger for $10 and have a contest for the "description" of his work.
I'm all for Battey. Ullger? Not so much. Too bad we couldn't also sponsor Joe Vavra's page and disparage Torii on it.
I'm in favor of the Battey sponsorship. Light Rail would be ok, too, but I think I'd prefer to let that money fester for future needs of the .org.
For $10, I'm all for getting Ullger'd.
Scott Baker's page is available for $60. He might be a worthwhile target for the number of page views.
And a way to pimp "Light Rail"
He's my favorite Twin, so I'd be into Baker.
I say do it. I'd also like Light Rail. Seems like a good person to attract the kind of people we'd want around here.
Going by the voting results, we maybe have plenty of the kind of people we are here already.
Did that make sense? It did when I said it, but typing it messed with my head.
or ex-Twin Kevin Slowey?
A bit much at $130 unfortunately.
I'm not in favor of Ulger.
I like sponsoring Early Battey. Scott Baker could be fun too.
I think the sponsorship is a great idea. I've thought of sponsoring a page or two on my own, but I don't have the money to blow. It doesn't matter much to me who it is as long as it's someone related to the Twins, which I'm sure it would be.
This is a very good idea. I would also like to throw Anthony Swarzak into the suggestion pool. He's available for a very reasonable $30, and I feel like some fun could be had with the message.
I'd approve of Sleestak if we can change the message nearly daily to a different name.
I agree with picking someone likely to get the kind of traffic we want over at the WGOM. I think the message should represent that as well.
I'll stick by my suggestion for Earl Battery. I also like Scott Baker.
Other cheap pages I could go for. Brian Harper. Shane Mack. Randy Bush.
what is wrong with you people? Nobody seems to be willing to spell Pearl Batten's name correctly.
Ephraim Battery would be offended at this mishandling of his affairs.
Ron Davis would only run $25.
Seriously, though, it's only $30 to sponsor Tom Kelly's page.
httpv://youtu.be/VDW0ZnZxjn4
Not even "No thanks for all the memories, Ron!"?
httpv://youtu.be/CsbYx6hevoQ
Tom Kelly would be a good choice for the year he gets his number retired, I would think.
Very good point.
Scott Baker is a good choice
Corey Koskie is available for $35, although I imagine he doesnt generate many page views
Koskie and Mack are by far - by far - my favorite players listed, but the current player/pageview thing is definitely clouding my judgment.
Just means we have to fire up the hype machine and drive some page views their way. God knows it doesn't work to ferschlugginer sites like this one.
F-bomb is only $100. That's a good deal considering it's an even year.
Sweet Music is going for $75 and Black Jack is only $355!
If this is in addition to a rainy day fund, then I'm 100% for it. I dunno what all could go wrong with the site and how much we'd need to fix it, but having a little extra stashed away seems like a good idea.
this would be in addition to a rainy day fund, yes.
I'd rather people pooled together with the intent to sponsor a page if that is what they want to do. When I donated I assumed that it was going to keeping this site up and running, and not pay for something like this.
That said, I guess I'm in a small minority and what the majority decides is fine, but I don't really see what we gain by sponsoring a page.
Hmm, you bring up a good point that has caused me to think about this a little more. What do we gain? If we're looking to expand readership, I'm sure there are better ways. I, for one, have never clicked on a sponsor's ad on BR. If it's just because we've got money to burn, Save it and make the fund drive every 18 months instead of yearly (or whatever the numbers come out to). Or if it's just for the laugh of an inside joke, maybe that should be a separate drive?
Yeah, the more I think about this, the more I agree with Yickit.
I agree, this is part of why I voted no. Thanks for putting it out there, yickit.
this is a pretty good point that i hadn't really considered.
i guess my feeling behind it is we did very well in our donations, much better than we'd anticipated. as a site, we heavily utilize B-R, so it seemed like a good way to give a little back to them, as well as throw our name around on the internets for like-minded people like us (twins fans, stat friendly, etc.) to see. while i still like the idea, i can understand this position.
maybe, if we take this to another round of voting on which specific page to support, we can put an option for "no one" since this position hadn't really been discussed, but a majority of people still supported the sponsorship.
Yeah, I don't mind sponsoring a page as a give-back to B-R. Trying to pick one as a way to drive eyes to WGOM doesn't really enter into it for me.
in all honesty, that was more a fringe benefit for me. my vote wouldn't have much to do with what would garner the most traffic.