Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, February 17, 2014

Cameron: On Craig Kimbrel and Committing to a Closer

But how likely is it that the Braves will still want to pay Kimbrel $13 million four years from now? It’s no secret that the shelf life of relief pitchers is shorter than players at other positions, and Kimbrel would hardly be the first dominant reliever to show up, dominate for a while, and then hang around as a shell of what he once was. Can we really forecast, right now, that Kimbrel will still be one of the best relievers in baseball in 2017?

...However, it must be noted that Kimbrel’s track record is far superior to the ones we’re looking at here. He’s not Gabe White, a career mediocrity who had one great year. Even guys like K-Rod or Lidge weren’t as good as Kimbrel is now. Kimbrel has further to fall than the rest, and could decline a lot while still remaining an excellent pitcher. In that way, he’s not that different from Papelbon, who is worse than he was but still quite good.

Is this a risk for the Braves? Absolutely, and I’m not entirely sure that the upside of potentially having him around for one or two extra seasons at $13 million per year is worth the extra money they guaranteed him going forward, but it should also be clear that this isn’t an obvious mistake. As much as relievers are fickle, a significant portion do sustain success for long periods of time, and Kimbrel is good enough that he can get worse and still be worth $13 million in 2017 dollars.

Like the Freeman deal, there’s an argument to be made that perhaps this deal costs Atlanta too much without providing a ton of upside, but like the Freeman deal, the Braves have ensured that they get to keep a high quality talent through his 20s without having to commit to his 30s. Every long term deal has a risk, but the Braves are taking risks on player’s prime years, and that’s a strategy I can’t argue against too strongly.

Thanks to Hip, Hip, Hippauf!.

Repoz Posted: February 17, 2014 at 05:57 PM | 28 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: braves, business, history

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.

   1. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 17, 2014 at 06:21 PM (#4658190)
This is a nice piece, but it fails to account for the market value of the team keeping its star players as they open their new stadium. Unless you factor that into the equation, you won't really understand how the *Braves* value a given player's presence on the roster.
   2. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 17, 2014 at 07:20 PM (#4658217)
This is a nice piece, but it fails to account for the market value of the team keeping its star players as they open their new stadium. Unless you factor that into the equation, you won't really understand how the *Braves* value a given player's presence on the roster.

Yeah, besides dominant starting pitchers, there's really no evidence fans will show up to watch particular stars, over an equivalently talented team with different stars. Certainly no one has ever claimed people buy tickets to see a closer. It's only a 40% chance he even pitches.

Kimbrel is insanely good. The Braves signed him because they think it is a good baseball move; it helps them put a winning team on the field.
   3. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: February 17, 2014 at 07:44 PM (#4658230)
Kimbrel is insanely good. The Braves signed him because they think it is a good baseball move; it helps them put a winning team on the field.


Well that's the thing. Kimbrel's numbers are just off the charts good...and for 3 and a bit years. I'm sure someone like Bobm can run a chart for us that shows how many other relievers have sustained such brilliance for between 3 and 4 years, but the numbers are ridiculous at this point. As Cameron suggested he's got some room to fall and still be really good. I like the Braves strategy this offseason and as a mid payroll squad would seem to have bought some long term security by locking up all their good, young guys.

I for one am not a fan of paying huge amounts for relievers. The dark art of cobbling together an effective pen for pennies on the dollar is still one my favourite things about baseball management. Some teams do it so well and others just suck at it.
   4. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 17, 2014 at 08:11 PM (#4658237)
Well that's the thing. Kimbrel's numbers are just off the charts good...and for 3 and a bit years. I'm sure someone like Bobm can run a chart for us that shows how many other relievers have sustained such brilliance for between 3 and 4 years, but the numbers are ridiculous at this point. As Cameron suggested he's got some room to fall and still be really good. I like the Braves strategy this offseason and as a mid payroll squad would seem to have bought some long term security by locking up all their good, young guys.

I for one am not a fan of paying huge amounts for relievers. The dark art of cobbling together an effective pen for pennies on the dollar is still one my favourite things about baseball management. Some teams do it so well and others just suck at it.


Yeah, I'm not sure the move will work; Kimbrel could easily flame out a la Eric Gagne.

I'm just saying the Braves' motivation is that they think this deal makes them a better team. Not some concern about still having Kimbrel in 2017 to open their new park.
   5. Walt Davis Posted: February 17, 2014 at 08:24 PM (#4658243)
It’s no secret that the shelf life of relief pitchers is shorter than players at other positions

I'd like to see this analysis. The shelf life of any position is quite short. A dodgy reliever having those really good 60 IP that one season is no different than Brian LaHair having those two good months. Between starters and relievers, teams use an average of about 23 pitchers a year these days, probably 14-15 of them primarily as relievers, but probably no more than 2-4 2B. 40 man rosters are generally about your 13 ML position players, position players on the DL, maybe a 3rd C at AAA and a couple of position prospect you would have lost in the rule 5 otherwise.*

You've just got to control for stuff like that before talking about shelf life. Kimbrel is obviously not your average reliever. He's not the pitching equivalent of Steve Clevenger while most relievers are -- or probably worse. Clevenger is probably in the top 100 Cs in professional baseball while Edgmer Escalona is probably barely in the top 100 pitchers in the AL East. If you ranked all the Cs in baseball and all the relief pitchers in baseball by talent, you'd find that the 28-year-old rookie reliever that gave you 15 innings of lousy pitching in the majors last year has the same rank as your rookie league C.

Probably at best you could comp the shelf life of pitchers (or relievers) to all position players. Pitchers are obviously greater injury risks and (it would seem) especially greater quality-altering injury risks (shoulder) so presumably they do have shorter shelf lives. But really those two worlds operate in very different ways. ML playing time for position players is almost entirely a function of quality -- i.e. there are well over 100 guys who can give you 1200 innings at 2B, so your selection criterion of how to divide up those innings is almost purely quality (with some injury selection). Putting a 2B on the field every inning requires about 1.5 roster slots and usually at worst 3 players (who are also often spending time at other positions). For pitching, the driving consideration is quantity -- filling up 900 starter innings and 500 reliever innings requires 12-13 roster slots. Add injury issues on top of it and you need 20+ guys to fill those 12-13 slots.

Frankly I think it's a nearly impossible and not very useful comparison.

As to Kimbrel -- his crazy numbers and the rising K-rate makes it hard to find comps. Looking for young relievers with high K-rates from 2000-2005 (200+ IP, 80% relief, K/9 > 9) turns up only BH Kim and K-Rod. At 25, AZ turned Kim into a starter (he did fine at a much lower K-rate) then traded him to Boston who let him start a bit then back to the pen. He pitched 122 innings in 44 relief and 12 starts with a substantially lower K-rate. This may not have been good for him. Regardless, he got hurt at 25 and was never the same.

K-Rod was pretty awesome through age 25 -- 188 ERA+, 12/4 K/BB, 6 H/9. From ages 26-29 he was dandy as a pitcher -- 265 IP, 150 ERA+, 10/4 K/BB. This includes his Mets meltdown and trade to Milw. In the last two years, he's had 1 lousy full season and one good half-season.

Another slice suggests that Dotel is not a bad comp. He debuted much later (at 25) which makes it a problematic comp. He also started a good bit when he first came up. But in those early days he K'd 10+ each year and even touched 12-13 a couple of times. From 26-29, he had 414 IP (20 starts), 142 ERA+, 10.5/4 K/BB -- the ERA+ dragged down by a mediocre age 26 season (34 relief, 16 starts). He wasn't any good as a reliever in that age 26 season really but his K/9 went from 9 as starter to 13 as a reliever. He wasn't that successful after age 29 but did play 10 more seasons and averaged 11 K/9 over that period -- gave up a lot of HR.

Who else to comp him to? Rivera also didn't debut until 25 and that mostly as a starter. Moved to the pen from 26-29 he had a 8/3 K/BB and 242 ERA+. From 30-33 he went 8/2 and 192. Papelbon's first full year as a reliever wasn't until 25. From 26-29 he had 262 IP, 184 ERA+, 11/3. At 24-25, Wagner had 13/4 K/BB and 142 ERA+ in 120 IP; 26-29 was 13/3, 163. Gagne was a failed starter through 25; from 26-29, he was 13/2 and 218 -- possibly with unnatural help. :-)

Some bad names. More poking ... Rocker K'd a ton and walked a ton through 25 (160 IP). He had his media misadventure at 26, threw only 90 more IP but still K'd 11/9. Farnsworth failed as starter but had a 12/3 K/BB at age 25 in his first relief-only season (I know, Farnsworth only walking 3/9 ... whoda thunk). From 26-29, 260 IP with 10/4 but only a 105 ERA+. Riske, middle reliever, high K, high BB through 25 -- something happened to him. For 26-27, 9.5/3.5 and 146 in 152 IP; at 28, the K and BB rates drop to 6/2 but equally effective in 72 innings and he remained a 6 K/9 pitcher after that, effective through 30.

Soriano was dominant at 23 but missed almost all of 24-25. From 26-29, 222 IP, 10/3, 156, missed most of one season. Ah, Broxton is a good one. 12/3.5 and 147, 317 IP from 21-25 -- good peripherals at 26, hurt at 27, not the same but still out there.

Jenks -- heaps of Ks, OK results at 24-25, K-rate way down but effective for 26-28, K-rate back up to 10 but ineffective at 29 -- baseball is a funny game.

Street -- 331 IP, 9/2, 151 through 25 ... 201 IP, 9/2, 133 ... two partial seasons.

Marmol -- 156 IP, 12/4, 216 at 24-25 ... 281 IP, 13/7, 126 from 26-29 ... not as horrible as I remembered it.

Soria -- 189 IP, 10/3, 213 at 23-25 ... 126 IP, 9/2, 146 for 26-27 then hurt and done.

All told, the best comps seem to be K-Rod, Street, Broxton, Soria and maybe Marmol. A mixed bag. It largely depends on how you think pitching "ages" a player. Most of the pitchers above were really good from 26-29 or at least not substantially worse than they were through 25. But most of them had only 1-2 seasons of relief through 25, not 4 full ones. Is the appropriate comp an age-based comp or a relief years comp? Those 4-5 names seem to be the ones where age and relief years roughly match. That is, the main risk appears to be injury (or being a nut job) so is Kimbrel more at risk of injury at 26-29 than a similarly performing pitcher (not that there really are any) with only 120 relief innings through 25?

* I just grabbed the O's who have 22 pitchers. Of the 18 position players, 3 are 21-22 year-olds signed/drafted in 08-09 and another is a 26-year-old Cuban they signed before last season and who got a cup of coffee last year. Johnny Monell is the 3rd C. You can debate whether any 40-man roster really needs Lough, Reimold and Pearce.
   6. jdennis Posted: February 17, 2014 at 08:53 PM (#4658251)
Keep in mind that the Braves are going to try to market Kimbrel as the next Mariano. The manufactured hype portion of the equation.
   7. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: February 17, 2014 at 09:00 PM (#4658255)
Even as great as Kimbrel is, the way closers are used now (only entering games that are already pretty much won) I don't know how much real value you get from that. Is the gap between Kimbrel and Johnny Average-Closer really that large? It doesn't seem so. Whoever is that guy that you bring in when it's 3-3 in the eighth is the guy that can make a difference and that's not the closer these days.

   8. bigglou115 Posted: February 17, 2014 at 09:15 PM (#4658261)
One thing I will say is, the Braves have been one of, if not the, best team in baseball at identifying talent for their pen. They've found adequate retread projects and identified players who most teams had passed by who turned into adequate back end options, leading to then annual finishing in the top 3-5 of bullpen ERA. I trust them a bit more here than I would most teams.
   9. Mike Emeigh Posted: February 17, 2014 at 09:22 PM (#4658265)
Even as great as Kimbrel is, the way closers are used now (only entering games that are already pretty much won) I don't know how much real value you get from that.


This isn't quite the case. One-run and two-run games account for about 2/3 of saves, and about 5% of saves occur in games where the pitcher came into the game while it was close in the eighth, held the lead, and then benefited from a big inning which pushed the lead at the end above three runs.

Is the gap between Kimbrel and Johnny Average-Closer really that large?


Having Kimbrel as your closer means that you probably don't have to churn through multiple closers. Over the past 15 years, in any given season, somewhere between half and two-thirds of teams replace their closer at some point during the season - and go through a fairly lengthy period where they blow a lot of leads, either while the current closer is ineffective or while the team is trying to decide who should be the new closer.

-- MWE
   10. Dr. Vaux Posted: February 17, 2014 at 11:42 PM (#4658321)
there's really no evidence fans will show up to watch particular stars, over an equivalently talented team with different stars.


What about the A's in the early '00s? I think that one reason why their attendance didn't benefit more from their winning seasons was because their fans knew that their favorite players would be leaving. That the team kept winning didn't seem to matter. (And of course the team stopped winning eventually.)
   11. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 18, 2014 at 12:07 AM (#4658322)
What about the A's in the early '00s? I think that one reason why their attendance didn't benefit more from their winning seasons was because their fans knew that their favorite players would be leaving. That the team kept winning didn't seem to matter. (And of course the team stopped winning eventually.)

They didn't show up when they had the stars, they didn't show up when the stars left.
   12. bobm Posted: February 18, 2014 at 01:06 AM (#4658331)
For single seasons, From 1916 to 2013, (requiring onbase_plus_slugging_plus<=45, At least 80% games in relief and At least 60 Innings Pitched), sorted by greatest Seasons matching criteria

                                      
Rk                 Yrs From   To   Age
1   Mariano Rivera  10 1996 2011 26-41
2       Joe Nathan   5 2004 2013 29-38
3     Billy Wagner   4 1999 2010 27-38
4   John Wetteland   4 1993 1998 26-31
5    Craig Kimbrel   3 2011 2013 23-25
6    Carlos Marmol   3 2007 2010 24-27
7        Emil Kush   3 1946 1948 29-31

   13. Tricky Dick Posted: February 18, 2014 at 10:42 AM (#4658404)
It's certainly a risky move. Hard throwing relief pitchers seem to be particularly susceptible to requiring surgery on their shoulder or elbow. Off the previous list in No. 12, Wagner required arm surgery after his first four years of closing, and Nathan and Wetteland both underwent TJ surgery. Marmol may not have had surgery, but he suffered the kind of decline that suggests his arm has suffered.

I think, if you are the Braves, you enter into the contract assuming that you probably will have to pay $13 million for a lost season along the way. I'm not sure it's worth it, but I can see why a team might take the risk.
   14. Colin Posted: February 18, 2014 at 03:40 PM (#4658581)
I don't think of the team as marketing Kimbrel individually to sell tickets so much as they want the fan base to see that they're making a long term plan around a core of talent. My fear with the team was that they'd extend nobody, lose a bunch of these guys around 2015-16, scramble to buy affordable (i.e. risky) free agents, and suck by 2017. I'm still not sold on the idea that they'll field a strong team by then without a few additional pieces on offense, but now their marketing toward prospective season ticket holders for the new ballpark is around Freeman, Teheran, Kimbrel, and Simmons. A strong core gives them something to market, and Kimbrel is a popular part of that goal.

As for his numbers, in theory they have room to decline, but I think he's more likely to implode via injury than to decline from dominance into being merely good. If he stays healthy he'll keep throwing well, and if he doesn't he'll be an albatross. I don't expect there to be much ground in between.
   15. bigglou115 Posted: February 18, 2014 at 04:10 PM (#4658604)
@14 There's still a ways to go before I'm really sold on a competitive 2016+ Atlanta Braves. For starters, they aren't exactly swore rated from the pack with current talent. Second, they probably only get to keep one more pitcher and one of Jason/Justin, assuming the roughly $90-100 MM payroll is still the limit going forward. Even if they can manage to keep producing cost controlled pitching, they're going to need to fill holes at CF, LF, and likely 3B, assuming La Stella can actually be an everyday 2B, on a tightly constrained budget. Add in they'll likely need SP at least in depth and I'm dubious. This isn't some down the stretch problem, in 2 years they may only have $15 M to solve those problems and it isn't too far away too look at the minors and doubt any help is coming there.
   16. Ron J2 Posted: February 18, 2014 at 04:17 PM (#4658610)
#10 It is reasonably clear that casual fans do in fact care about stars leaving. From what I can tell most payroll cuts end up costing the team money. The main exceptions being pure slash and burns Marlins style. (and changes to the way revenue sharing works make these pure slash and burns less profitable)

Even then, they took a pretty big revenue hit. It's just that in those cases the payroll saving more than offset the revenue loss.
   17. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 18, 2014 at 04:26 PM (#4658615)
#10 It is reasonably clear that casual fans do in fact care about stars leaving. From what I can tell most payroll cuts end up costing the team money.

But you can let some stars go without cutting payroll. Payroll correlates with fan interest, because it is taken as a signal of team quality. But, I haven't seen any evidence that fans really care who makes up that payroll.
   18. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 18, 2014 at 04:33 PM (#4658622)
But you can let some stars go without cutting payroll. Payroll correlates with fan interest, because it is taken as a signal of team quality. But, I haven't seen any evidence that fans really care who makes up that payroll.


It's market signalling, and it matters. If the Braves let their home grown stars bleed away as they wind down the Turner Field era, they are driving down interest in their product for the opening of White Flight Field in 2017. That's not what any smart business does. You generate interest and demand prior to a new park opening. Even the Marlins knew that. (Remember when they went on that buying binge when they new park opened?)
   19. Blackadder Posted: February 18, 2014 at 04:34 PM (#4658624)
From what I can tell most payroll cuts end up costing the team money.


Is that true controlling for team quality? The obvious mechanism is that payroll cuts lead to a worse team lead to fewer wins lead to less revenue, which is not what we are talking about here.
   20. Nasty Nate Posted: February 18, 2014 at 04:47 PM (#4658641)
Whoever is that guy that you bring in when it's 3-3 in the eighth is the guy that can make a difference and that's not the closer these days.


Both guys make a difference. Even the most save-stat-fetishist managers still usually use their closers in tie games at home in the 9th.
   21. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 18, 2014 at 04:51 PM (#4658645)
It's market signalling, and it matters. If the Braves let their home grown stars bleed away as they wind down the Turner Field era, they are driving down interest in their product for the opening of White Flight Field in 2017. That's not what any smart business does. You generate interest and demand prior to a new park opening. Even the Marlins knew that. (Remember when they went on that buying binge when they new park opened?)

Not if they took the money they would have spent on Kimbrel, and use it to buy other players. There is no evidence fans care about "home grown stars".

They care about winning, and payroll is a signal of the quality of team they're going to get.
   22. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 18, 2014 at 05:29 PM (#4658671)
Not if they took the money they would have spent on Kimbrel, and use it to buy other players. There is no evidence fans care about "home grown stars".


Methinks the Yankee fan in your is coming out.
   23. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 18, 2014 at 05:36 PM (#4658677)
Methinks the Yankee fan in your is coming out.

No, just the empiricist. Everyone roots for the laundry.

The Seattle Mariners lost three of the most elite home grown talents you'll ever see in 1998-2000 (R Johnson, Griffey and ARod). That didn't stop attendance from going nuts when they actually fielded a consistent winner.

   24. flournoy Posted: February 18, 2014 at 05:39 PM (#4658681)
Did Mariner fans consider Randy Johnson to be homegrown?
   25. Nasty Nate Posted: February 18, 2014 at 05:52 PM (#4658695)

The Seattle Mariners lost three of the most elite home grown talents you'll ever see in 1998-2000 (R Johnson, Griffey and ARod). That didn't stop attendance from going nuts when they actually fielded a consistent winner.


They had big attendance figures for a bad team in 98-99.

Also the Kingdome to Safeco transition affected attendance levels presumably in the early aughts.
   26. Colin Posted: February 18, 2014 at 06:56 PM (#4658728)
@14 There's still a ways to go before I'm really sold on a competitive 2016+ Atlanta Braves.


Oh, me too. They lack talent in the minors, especially on offense, and they're going to need to find a 2B, a 3B, and an OF somehow. But, I presume their main goal is to give themselves some chance of competing in 2016, with enough names sticking around thereafter to sell season tickets and sign development leases for 2017. Prior to all these extensions, 2016 was looking potentially catastrophic. Now it's looking merely difficult

And while I get the argument that the money spent on Kimbrel could have been spent on other parts - it's an argument I've made myself, especially with respect to retaining Heyward - it's not really known what other affordable parts would be out there and available. The FA market right now is absurd, and Wren likely figures it's only going to get worse. He's paying to keep talent he knows is good, because the alternative is to roll the dice on the next BJ Upton in a market where mid-market money buys you Boone Logan.

Again, I'm not sold this will work, and I don't like going four years on a flamethrowing relief pitcher, but I think this is the reasoning.
   27. flournoy Posted: February 18, 2014 at 07:22 PM (#4658739)
What looks so difficult about 2016? I'm not saying it will be easy, but I think the Braves look pretty strong.

La Stella seems like a reasonable bet at second base - he should at least exceed latter-day Uggla, who will be off the books. Chris Johnson will still be in his last year of arbitration, so he could stick around at third. Yes, Heyward and Justin Upton will be free agents, so the Braves will probably have to replace one or both of them. Medlen will probably be gone. I think if you're looking two years down the road, and think that they'll need to replace an outfielder or two and a starting pitcher, that paints a pretty nice picture.
   28. Walt Davis Posted: February 19, 2014 at 12:52 AM (#4658829)
Fans probably don't buy tickets to see the closer but they sure eat up the dominant (and even not dominant) closer showmanship. Enter Sandman, Dodger fans going nuts in the Gagne days, Wild Thing, dating back at least as far as the Mad Hungarian. Granted, Lee Smith and Doug Jones didn't induce hysteria (at least not of the positive kind) but fans love going nuts when the guy comes on to slip in the final dagger.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Marc Sully's not booin'. He's Youkin'.
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogMartino: Michael Cuddyer is a perfect free agent fit for NY Mets, who like him
(2 - 8:24am, Oct 23)
Last: JJ1986

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-23-2014
(3 - 8:23am, Oct 23)
Last: BDC

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(183 - 8:19am, Oct 23)
Last: BDC

NewsblogMcSweeneys: NEW BASEBALL STATISTICS.
(17 - 8:18am, Oct 23)
Last: BDC

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3215 - 8:11am, Oct 23)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogHow Wall Street Strangled the Life out of Sabermetrics | VICE Sports
(16 - 7:16am, Oct 23)
Last: Arbitol Dijaler

NewsblogCardinals proud of fourth straight NLCS appearance | cardinals.com
(66 - 7:12am, Oct 23)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogJay set for surgery — and for CF in 2015 : Sports
(6 - 6:54am, Oct 23)
Last: cv2002

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(353 - 6:27am, Oct 23)
Last: steagles

NewsblogAd Week: What Is Madeleine Albright Doing on the Wheaties Box?
(10 - 5:56am, Oct 23)
Last: CraigK

NewsblogHunter Pence responds to Royals fan signs with monster Game 1 | MLB.com
(55 - 3:53am, Oct 23)
Last: Shibal

NewsblogJerome Williams re-signs with Phils
(10 - 2:11am, Oct 23)
Last: boteman

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 2 OMNICHATTER
(534 - 12:25am, Oct 23)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(854 - 12:25am, Oct 23)
Last: DJS and the Infinite Sadness

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(30 - 12:08am, Oct 23)
Last: rlc

Page rendered in 0.4708 seconds
52 querie(s) executed