User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets. |
Ticket Nest sells Braves, Cubs, Padres, Indians, Marlins, Nuts, Pirates, Rangers, Patriots, Royals, Stars, Tides, Tigers, Twins, Phillies, Wings, Mets, Yankees, Angels, Dodgers tickets, and Dragons tickets. |
Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers |
Page rendered in 0.7792 seconds
81 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
The Mets have shaved 5 games off the Phillies lead in less than a month. I honestly didn't think they'd get this close, especially this soon.
Edit: I should say that Minaya may not want to sign Bonds anyway, though I doubt it since you raise the point that if the Mets dont make the playoffs he is likely out of a job. But the Wilpons won't go for it, so it's a non-issue.
Endy's fun to watch and all, but he's a lifetime .271 hitter with a .312 ob% and no power. The Mets are much better off with him playing every third or fourth game than getting 350-400 at-bats.
Endy is 30, and has put up an on base percentage over .325 once in his entire career. He might be able to field, but he can't hit, and good field/no hit left fielders are not a valuable bunch. There's no reason he needs to get playing time.
That's what they said about Jason Michaels. Then he played every day.
It's all well and good that you think that, but his statistical record says that's unlikely. He's a 4th or 5th OF, not someone who should get a majority of playing time (especially in a corner).
In basically a season's worth of data, Endy has a ZR of around .960 in the corner outfield spots. The guy is the Adam Everrett of outfielders. Beltran's a Gold Glover in center and Endy's clearly better than him. And Endy's better in the corners than he is in center.
Anyway, I don't know if he can continue to hit line drives 20% of the time, but if he does he could probably hit around 330/400. He also is a phenomenal OF. However, I would love to have Alou back.
One other LD% stat. Brian Schneider is hitting line drives in 27.5% of his AB. That blows my mind. If he had enough PA to qualify, that would be second in baseball, behind Ryan Ludwick and ahead of Nady. I am literally stunned by that; I don't really think of Schneider as a guy who has hit in poor luck this year. Generally, his BABIP is around .9 higher than his LD%.
Possible trade question. The Indians are in last, have traded CC; what do you think about Casey Blake for the Mets? He has a career 105 OPS+, 110 this year. Career 830 OPS vs lefties. He could spot Delgado against lefties, and probably even play some in the OF. I can't imagine he would cost a whole lot.
I'm not sure why. The Mets have a lot of problems, but so do the Phillies--just like 2007. I thought it would tighten up, although I cna understand Mets' fans feeling pessimistic.
I think it will be a close "race."*
* And yes, I am aware that the NL West sucks a lot more.
-- MWE
Wait, your claim is that Endy is +30 true talent defensively? I don't deny that Endy might be a better player than Alou because of defense, but +30 is nutty it seems...
Chris - you'd know better than I, does this seem plausible?
He's unreal.
Yeah, I hear you. And especially since he has hit a lot more flyballs this year, which I believe is going to hurt his BABIP.
And 0% chance of a GG presumably.
I guess this is the "full autonomy" Minaya supposedly sought and gained when he was hired as GM?
Or maybe the Wilpons don't want to sign him because they're colluding with the other owners. Maybe the "headache" they're afraid of is the sound of Bud and the owners yelling at them for signing a guy they weren't supposed to.
I mean, if there's collusion going on, it seems likely that it would be coming from the owners, not the GMs. If Manaya wants to sign him and the Wilpons won't let him, to me that increases the suspicion of collusion rather than decreasing it.
All of this is speculation, of course, and I'm willing to give the owners the benefit of the doubt for now. But if I were a sports reporter this is definitely an area I'd be poking around in.
Well, that's exactly what the folks in the media who keep on pestering these GMs with their obsession are. If the shoe fits, wear it.
As I've said several times before, I truly do look forward to the arrival of the day when everyone finally grows weary of beating on this dead horse. Seeing this same manufactured story every single week has gotten rather tedious.
Fortunately, I think we're getting pretty close to the end of it now that the All-Star break is nearly upon us.
I just can't believe that ALL teams have this fear.
Does that mean he's not buying the owners' take that it's 30 independent minds, or that he's not buying the take that it is collusion, or just that he's not interested in pursuing the story at this time?
Or maybe there are Communists under the bed.
I just can't believe that ALL teams have this fear.
The problem is that there isn't any clear demarcation line between collusion and 30 individual decisions that you would be able to introduce as evidence for collusion, short of the kind of smoking gun that hasn't yet appeared. Not that you couldn't easily make a logical case for collusion, but as long as the non-collusionary interpretation has at least a faint ring of plausibility (which I think it does), then we're pretty much going to remain stuck where we are.
Agreed... unfortunately.
He is not buying collusion. He believes that the market is less than thirty - say, 20, and that those 20 could independently decide they don't want it.
Thanks for clearing that up. Hard to believe that with all the anti-Selig writers in the country, you couldn't get at least one of them to pursue a story that has so much potential upside in terms of potential career advancement, if nothing else. And especially since collusion is an offense that has ramifications going well beyond the specific case of Barry Bonds.
Actually it makes a lot of sense. The guys that really need to be breaking this story (if it exists) are the guys from the news department, who are competent in that particular aspect of journalism. Your average columnist/beat guy generally doesn't have the background necessary to ferret it out. The sports section is just not a training ground for investigative work.
Well, there are a couple good reasons why a writer may not pursue it:
1) A legitimate belief that there is no collusion.
2) A legitimate belief in collusion, along with a legitimate dislike of Barry Bonds, resulting in an unwillingness to investigate further.
3) Inability to convince media management as to the existence of collusion, resulting in no authority to pursue the story - except at personal expense. Sports media has never been a big supporter of legitimate investigative journalism.
4) A belief that any short term career benefit from showing collusion would be outweighed by the long term effect on a career of being banned from any major league clubhouse/pressbox. For the most part, those covering the game tend towards caution, as their livelihoods depend on access to the game.
I'm sure there are a bunch of other reasons as well, but these are the four which most quickly come to mind.
Deny him a press pass. It's been done before, for much more trivial reasons than pointing out collusion. Besides, they don't actually have to ban anyone - there just has to be the possibility that they will ban anyone, and many (not all, but many) of the writers will engage in self-censorship. Just think of baseball history, and how much the daily beat writers covered up for players/ownership which didn't come out until years later.
And I'm telling you it wouldn't happen in this situation, unless baseball wanted to face even more #### than they'd already be dealing with from the collusion investigation.
5) Budget cuts at most newspapers leaving journalists little free time to pursue stories that don't produce column inches.
And I'm telling you it wouldn't happen in this situation, unless baseball wanted to face even more #### than they'd already be dealing with from the collusion investigation.
Exactly. The upside / downside ratio in all this is a hundred times greater on the writers' side of the ledger. For baseball to try to retaliate would only produce an even bigger feather in any writer's cap, and the second that got exposed, baseball's shlt would really begin to hit the fan. People do need to be reminded sometimes that the collective power of the media is infinitely greater than the collective power of 30 baseball owners and a feebleminded Commisioner.
The necessary X-factor is the will to pursue the story. And here it may just be a case of the chicken waiting for the egg to be hatched in terms of a plausible leak to follow up on. But if there's really a conspiracy, I can't honestly believe that at some point there wouldn't be a leak. Not that we haven't had a couple of threads about that already.
Can they do that to a BBWAA cardholder? Isn't that the main justification of said instrument, to guarantee unrestricted access to the pressbox?
Hell, it's not just the media's power. I'm not sure the player's association would take kindly to a ban of THAT guy.
I have no doubt about this. I do, however, have a differing view as to the likelihood that an individual would accept the risk. In most cases, I think these writers are conservative (not in terms of politics) in their willingness to write highly controversial stories which may put their access and sources at risk. As stated above, there doesn't actually have to be a response from baseball - in most cases, the possibility of a response is good enough to stifle the interest in investigating. After all, even a star like Rosenthal would be greatly impacted if his sources suddenly stopped returning his calls. The potential negative impact on some generic beat reporter would be even worse.
In my opinion, any in-depth investigation into the possibility of collusion would have to come from an individual who is not a regular baseball writer.
As a question, because I honestly don't know, does the MLBPA have any control over who does or doesn't have access to the clubhouse/press-box? I thought that was decided more at the organizational level, rather than the player level.
I'm just thinking of the stink they'd raise if MLB/team owners tried to keep out the guy who reported on collusion.
I think your 48 is spot on. I'm sure that lost access to sources in the commissioner's office/team front offices could be a factor in writers not pursuing it. I just don't think fear of an outright ban is realistic, because the collective weight of the media (and not just the guy's own paper, but from all over) as well as the player's association would make such a punishment, if even possible, not worth it.
And as I said earlier, I agree that any such story would come from a non-baseball writer, for the reason you stated plus the simple fact that your typical beat writer isn't qualified to do this kind of investigative story.
I'm not sure about a pressbox, but teams have banned players from entering the clubhouse. Any restriction, however, would have a hugely negative effect on the ability to report on a game.
The reason the press won't go investigate this story is because it is Barry Bonds, and they have spent a lifetime skewing him. nothing more. The Baseball writers work have a "good 'ol boys" network to ya know.
Don't forget his arm. Endy's arm is very strong and very accurate. I know what I'm about to write is a fanboy cliche, but you really can't appreciate how good he is defensively if you don't watch him regularly. Glad to see that the stats back up that premise.
That's the point I keep trying to make in response to Andy's silly argument, and which some people touched on above: sports reporters are not Woodward and Bernstein. (Woodward and Bernstein aren't Woodward and Bernstein either, but that's a side issue.) They very rarely "break" stories beyond "so-and-so is being shopped around at the trade deadline"; it isn't in their job description or core competency. (Fainaru-Wada and Williams did not break any steroids story. The government did. (That doesn't mean FW+W didn't put a lot of work into the story once it had broken. But they didn't uncover it.)) If someone leaked some concrete evidence about collusion on Bonds to a reporter, would he cover it? Yeah, probably. If not, some other reporter would run with it. But they're not digging for it.
(*) Indeed, even when the story was public, because the MLBPA made formal charges, the media were far more likely to pooh-pooh it and side with the owners in saying, "Nothing to see here; everyone move on."
I agree with this, and I also don't understand why Andy thinks there are so many reporters who are "anti-Selig." They sure don't seem that way to me.
I am shocked--shocked--that Joey B hasn't yet shown up with his standard post containing the phrase "Bonds sycophants."
- yeh
let me see if i can't help out here
my name is baseball c.
i am a bonds syncophant. i have been synchphanting for 20 years now, since i first saw his picture and thought he was SOOOOOOOO cute. sometimes i would even syncophant before i listened to the day's scores. and it got to where i was - well i mean - i went into serious withdrawal last year when he had a day off after a night game and then the very next game there i would be watching each at bat. sometimes i would syncophant like 4 times a night and i would watch the replays on mlb.com the next day
and this year i realize i need to go to BLB not-so anonymous. so here i am
BARRY LAMAR 4EVAH!!!
AH LUUUUUUUUUUVVVVVVV BARRY LAMAR
AH WANT MAH BARRY LAMAR
Exactly.
Just like they did with steroids in sports for four decades. Once the public turned though, then the MSM was outraged, and started waving its moral finger. The hypocrisy at work here is amazing.
It's possible. IIRC, Rowand had a +30 year in CF a few seasons back.
So if no reporter gets a leak, we can just assume it's a case of perfect collusion + perfect security, and rule out any possibility that there wasn't any collusion to begin with.
Sentence first, verdict assumed, proof unnecessary.
For a man who rightly ridicules most every unproven conspiracy theory that comes down the road, you seem awfully willing to swallow this one based on nothing else but your own sense of logic.
Not that there may not be collusion. But a bit of concrete evidence beyond Bonds's statistics shouldn't be too much to ask for. Not to mention a bit of respect for the position of an owner who envisions the sort of heat that he thinks that he might get for breaking the ice. And the fact that this heat would likely turn out to be mostly chimerical doesn't negate the whole chickenshlt factor.
I agree with this, and I also don't understand why Andy thinks there are so many reporters who are "anti-Selig." They sure don't seem that way to me.
For more reasons than one, I suggest that you take out a subscription to The New York Times. If you can find one opinion piece by any of their writers with one friendly word for any Commissioner of Baseball other than Happy Chandler, Fay Vincent or the late Bart Giamatti, please let me know.
welcome to the world of Barry Lamar Bonds, the greatest baseball player ever.
A great rebuttal, but only if I were saying that the logic of the collusion accusation isn't highly plausible. Or if I've ever said that I'd convict Barry Bonds of perjury on the basis of the evidence against him that has been brought to date.
Sorry, but I've said neither of those things.
Who is going to bring that heat Andy? The media for about week?
When did it not become about wins, and more about PR for these owners. We are talking about a virtually free baseball player, who may be better than 90% of the guys they have on their roster (any roster) .. and he can't get a fricking phone call?
No.
the 30 owners aren't worried about "Media Heat". They are worried about Selig heat. Discretionary fund, HEAT.
How is this possible? I can understand one or two posters believing in this conspiracy, but almost everyone? There's only one answer... collusion. There must have been a meeting at some SABR conference, where Scott Boros convinced everyone to say they think there has been collusion. And now, no one's talking...
scott boras is not bonds' agent. and after watching seligula play pocket pool after bonds hit #756 last year, well, when nobody would even sign BLB for the minimum, i was REAL suspiscious
it is sort of like if your husband he come home with lipstick smears on his mouth and he smell like chanel #5 - yeah, he might could be a tranny, but more likely he been WITH another woman than he trying to BE another woman
If I didn't know what sychophant meant, this post'd be pretty hot.
How is this possible? I can understand one or two posters believing in this conspiracy, but almost everyone? There's only one answer... collusion. There must have been a meeting at some SABR conference, where Scott Boros convinced everyone to say they think there has been collusion. And now, no one's talking...
Only David is enough of an evil genius to be able to pull off a conspiracy so immense without a slip, and only David, as a lawyer, has enough money to bump off or pay off any potential squealers. All logical roads point in but one direction. I'll provide the actual evidence when I feel like getting around to it.
I wasn't. He's almost 44, a PR nightmare, under indictment, has bad knees, and hasn't played in nearly a year. It wouldn't have surprised me if someone signed him, and it wouldn't surprise me if no one did - which is what happened.
it is sort of like if your husband he come home with lipstick smears on his mouth and he smell like chanel #5 - yeah, he might could be a tranny, but more likely he been WITH another woman than he trying to BE another woman
No, it'd be like your husband coming home with no lipstick smears on his mouth, and smelling like his normal self, but he's really good looking, so you don't believe him when he says that no one made a pass at him. I mean, you could believe one or two women not making a pass at him, but every woman? Nope.
not to mention the SF Giants front office publicly claiming right after that incident .. "um, we won't be re-signing Bonds". I maybe wrong, but i believe it was a press release too, not some answer to some reporters question.
They couldn't even wait till the off season, when all the other player commitments are made? Nope, right after Bonds got his HR, Selig got on the phone. No doubt in my mind.
Don't forget to mention that it is generally believed among the media (and probably MLB in general) that he's also still using PEDs, and has long been portrayed as the poster boy for PED use.
Andy, you act like MLB Collusion has never happened before. That these 30 owners don't get together and talk in private. Seriously. We all know you know better.
Quite honestly, I am surprised you are coming down on the side of the owners here. I think the idea that you have no suspicions is due in part to your recent Bonds bias.
If Selig has such incredible control over teams, as you seem to believe, why didn't he use his magic powers on San Francisco in the off-season of 2006, when Bonds was also a free agent? Or did Selig secretly want Bonds to break Aaron's record, but only by a teeny bit?
Yes. I think that's also what the Giants wanted.
I don't think Seligula controls the Giants, though.
Me neither. And I clearly recall reading at least three distinct articles from prominent sportswriters that directly stated "his career is over, nobody will ever sign him now" the next day or two after the indictments were officially brought late last year.
I wasn't as 100% sure myself as they were at first; I thought there was still a good chance that the maverickish Billy Beane would grab him on the cheap. But then once we got to around March and it was apparent that nobody was showing any real interest in him whatsoever, it became obvious to me that those writers got it exactly right and he was done.
Now that you mention it, I remember them also. But then again, maybe the sportswriters were in on the conspiracy.
If Selig would have tried to blacklist Bonds prior to him breaking the record, the public outcry would have been 100 times what it is now. It would have been so blatant, so obvious, that even Selig knew he couldn't get away with it.
Amazing, since the sportswriters have gotten pretty much everything wrong about this soap opera so far.
Bonds will never break the record
Nobody will sign Bonds (2006)
His body will never hold up
Hank Aaron hates him
Selig won't show
what else, I am sure there is more.
Except that media coverage of Bonds has been massively negative for years, and the general fan has long believed that Bonds is a cheater and a jerk - and neither group seemed to want him to break baseball's most sacred record.
Besides, if there was going to be a massive public outcry over Bonds last year, shouldn't there even be a minor public outcry now? I think you're greatly overestimating the level of public support for Bonds.
He-he, yes, Michael Wilbon is definitely a Bud Selig puppet. I hear they play golf and smoke cigars together in the offseason.
By the way, could you imagine Billy Beane, who now has an ownership stake in the A's, voluntarily agreeing to go along with any kind of collusion conspiracy? I sure as hell can't. He'd be the first guy to play the role of Mark Felt in the underground parking garage, blowing the lid wide open on the whole thing.
I think occams razor tells you that we just have some dumb teams in the MLB. Believing Selig is an evil genius is silly when he's proven himself an evil dullard.
And its hard to point to a team that benefits hugely from signing him. Contenders with needs like the Mets & DBacks have to offset his defensive cost against his offensive benefit, then weigh fan backlash vs.what's left. Even a no brainer like Seattle isn't getting back in the race with Bonds, so why take the PR hit?
I doubt there are more than 5 teams where BLB offers a significant improvement in their playoff hopes, and each of those so far is either too stupid or too afraid of the fans to do it.
Ill indict my home town DBacks who should have signed him a month ago. I can't. Believe JByrnes doesn't want him so that points to ownership's irrational concern for fans opinions that led them to the EByrnes contract.
Every poll i have seen over the last few years says his support is somewhere close to 50%, and it grows all the time. The latest poll on primer says that close to 70% of the viewers would have no problem putting Bonds to work.
if he was looking for work in 2006, and was being denied employment like he is now, the outcry would be far greater. Especially with that record right in front of him.
Gambling Rent, read what I've written, #33 and #62 in particular. And that's just on this particular thread. I've never said that it would be illogical to suspect collusion, and if it came out that there was I wouldn't be a bit surprised. But I do maintain that it's also perfectly plausible that there hasn't been any collusion, and that 30 owners are perfectly capable of wanting to avoid the sort of controversy that they think (probably mistakenly) that a Bonds signing will bring down upon them.
Quite honestly, I am surprised you are coming down on the side of the owners here. I think the idea that you have no suspicions is due in part to your recent Bonds bias.
Read through the still-existing "greatest living hitter" thread and see if you still want to say that. Not to mention that I've never said that Bonds should be the subject of any boycott or blackball other than the HOF, which is an entirely different subject. If I were the owner of any one of a number of teams, at the terms he's talking about I'd sign him in a minute.
Beane = Steinbrenner
A's = Yankees
Play Mark Felt = sign FA Jack Morris
Could you imagine?
I realize that you have never called for boycott, or prosecution, or any of that. I was just surprised that you thought these owners were above the fray here, but i guess i misread.
I haven't seen any of these polls outside of BTF (not that I'm doubting their existence), but I would also say that I doubt that any poll on BTF can be reasonably extrapolated to the general baseball fan. There's also a big difference between supporting Bonds, and being bothered to the point of raising a ruckus (in the form of a boycott, or press conference) such that MLB is forced to take attention.
I would guess (and this is only a guess) that most fans are like me (for I am the everyman), in that they would prefer to see Bonds playing this year, but aren't going to lose any sleep over the fact that he isn't.
Primer is close to 70 %, and even if you were to devide that number in half, half "Barry" fans, and half "win at all cost" fans, it still comes out as more support for, than the very vocal "witch hunters" against. Its a split.
Allot of Bonds fans won't bring him up in conversation anymore, because the conversation usually turns irrational so quick. At least that has been my experience, and I am sure I am not alone.
Even without a failed piss test, really?
I doubt there is a MLB player that has been piss tested more.
Nobody is "losing sleep" over it, but I think a lot of people feel more strongly than merely "preferring" to see Bonds play this year. I think it's extremely unfortunate that fans are being deprived of the once-in-a-lifetime chance to see the greatest hitter ever do great things at age 43 and beyond. If Bonds had voluntarily retired, or if he'd had a 2007 like the 2007 Clemens put up, there wouldn't be a huge sense of lost opportunity. But neither of those things happened, and I think the game is far, far worse off as a result of the way Bonds has been treated.
Watching a great player do special things into his 40s, and having that performance record etched in stone forevermore to consult and compare to and admire, is one of the great things about being a fan. Not having that opportunity is an incredible loss to the game.
Doesn't the CBA detail exactly how many times per season a player can be tested for PEDs?
Can I please get one example where the "public" was "smashed in the face by witch hunters" for supporting Barry Bonds?
By the way, prosecuting somebody for perjury, if you have the evidence, is not a witch hunt. It is a criminal proceeding that millions of other Americans have had to face. Now, if the feeds had absolutely no evidence, that would be a different story. But, based on what we all know, I think it is fair to say that Barry "may" have misled the grand jury when he said he never knowingly took steroids.
Very few people (apologists, supporters, or the undecided) will bring him up in conversation anymore, because the conversation usually turns nasty fairly quickly. It's not just the supporters who encounter this problem, as there are a fair number of irrational people on both sides of the discussion.
Gambling Rent is.
I'm sure that a lot of people do feel more strongly than "preferring". I'm sure just as many don't give a #### at all. On average, and based solely on my own conversations with people (and with the implicit bias in selection), I'm inclined to think that most people really haven't noticed much. After all, how many times did most casual fans get to see Bonds in an average season? One? Maybe two?
Once again, those of us who post here are not average in terms of the amount of attention we pay to the game.
would those be the same casual fans that were told fifty times a day, at the bottom and top of each hour, for 10 plus years, how evil Barry Bonds is?
Digging though somebody's trash for five plus years, and convening three grand jury's, just trying to get a guy to "maybe" slip up ... is a witch hunt.
762!
nope, not losing any sleep at all, thank you very much
Isn't this true for pretty much any topic on the internet? Can you please provide a real example (i.e. non-message board) where the public was "smashed in the face" for supporting Bonds?
Well, around here, the rabid Bonds supporters seem to be roughly matched in number with those who are rabidly anti-Bonds. Most of us are in the middle.
Besides, based on my limited browsing, and my experience with message boards, it only takes one or two people to create a flame war - it's not at all representative of the general state of things. In fact, it's a lot like the views typically expressed in the letters to the editor, in that it's only the extreme positions which take the time to write in, but the average person is left with the impression that every argument is polarized. No one is going to bother writing in a letter (and no one is going to bother publishing one) which says "I am completely neutral in my position".
Wow. If you live in a world where this actually happens, I can actually understand your anti-Bonds-haters stance. In my world, I am never told how evil Barry Bonds is (let alone 50 times a day). In fact, most people I know don't care who he is. I'm only told that Bonds is either a bad guy, good guy or misunderstood guy when I go looking for sports-related conversation and/or media.
No, it's called building up a successful case. What advantage would the feds have had if they rushed this case?
He would be, if he still read newspapers.
And as I've written before, it's also incredibly shortsighted by the caretakers of the game who've opted for the instant gratification of deBondsification. (In thirty unique, isolated, and wholly logical slivers, of course.) Not only will passions cool and perspective emerge, but now you'll have this unnecessary tack-on narrative of "what might have happened?" that will only burnish Bonds' legend. Far more than another 18 home runs for a sub-.500 Mariners or Giants team ever would or could have.
Still bugged by the "sycophants" who "tediously" wonder-- all the way up to the All-Star break yet!-- why the New York Mets are willing to follow up the glory of their 2007 with "The Mets have no interest in Barry Bonds"?
Then you're just gonna love the "they couldn't stop him, so they walked him... and then they banned him" storyline of the future.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main