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

Wednesday, January 02, 2013

Megdal: Standard and Poor’s thinks Fred Wilpon’s Mets have yet to hit bottom

Megdal with the obligory details…

The New York Mets have gotten successively worse, as a baseball team, each season since they started playing in Citi Field back in 2009.

Related: Attendance has gone down in each of those seasons from the previous one, placing an increasing stress on the already strained finances of the team’s ownership group.

Standard and Poor’s expects the trend to continue in 2013.

Nearly a year after the settling of the suit against Fred Wilpon and his partners by the trustee for the Bernie Madoff victims, an independent observer has come to the conclusion that the team’s ability to finance its stadium debt is worse than it was a year ago, just a few months from the scheduled trial date. (A similar conclusion from the trustee led to a settlement of that suit in the first place.)

The ratings service announced late last month that it was lowering the rating on the bonds issued to finance Citi Field to BB, two levels below investment grade, while continuing to rate the outlook as negative. And a deeper look at the supporting reasoning yields a familiar set of conclusions: the ratings agency believes attendance will drop further, on-field play will get worse, and the ownership group’s ability to cover losses is worse than it was a year ago.

Repoz Posted: January 02, 2013 at 03:59 PM | 38 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: business, mets

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. valuearbitrageur Posted: January 02, 2013 at 07:08 PM (#4337357)
"There is no problem that a $15m payroll cannot solve" - spoken by Jeffrey Lauria, in his head after voters approved his new stadium.
   2. Bhaakon Posted: January 02, 2013 at 07:25 PM (#4337365)
The ratings service announced late last month that it was lowering the rating on the bonds issued to finance Citi Field to BB, two levels below investment grade, while continuing to rate the outlook as negative.


I don't understand this. Does anyone really think that the Mets are going to go out of business and not make good on the bonds? A baseball team is not a normal business that would just declare bankruptcy and leave it creditors to fight over the carrion; all that would do is force the Wilpons to sell to someone who can make good on the debt.
   3. Swedish Chef Posted: January 02, 2013 at 08:28 PM (#4337388)
Does anyone really think that the Mets are going to go out of business and not make good on the bonds? A baseball team is not a normal business that would just declare bankruptcy and leave it creditors to fight over the carrion; all that would do is force the Wilpons to sell to someone who can make good on the debt.

Dodgers and Rangers have gone into bankruptcy recently. Sure, the creditors got paid, but there's no guarantee that they have to be made whole in these situations. Things may look good for franchise values now, but what about five years on? The risk is the creditors end up having to operate a struggling team in a sport that is in a downward spiral*.

*) Let's blame commissioner Hank Steinbrenner.
   4. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 02, 2013 at 08:36 PM (#4337395)
SC has a point. Bond owners are unlikely to get nothing, but they could take a hit and, even if they don't, if could take time. Therefore that's a bond that should be downgraded.

"There is no problem that a $15m payroll cannot solve" - spoken by Jeffrey Lauria, in his head after voters approved his new stadium.


Speaking of which, if the team drops payroll to David Wright + 24 guys making the minimum, or close to it, is there a floor for attendance the Mets are nonetheless very, very likely to not go below?

In other words, can the Wilpons reasonably expect to be able to turn enough of a profit, overall, to be able to eventually pay off their debts, even if it takes 20 or 30 years?

(Maybe the better question is simply, can the Wilpons turn a profit with a $40 million payroll?)
   5. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 08:38 PM (#4337396)

I don't understand this. Does anyone really think that the Mets are going to go out of business and not make good on the bonds? A baseball team is not a normal business that would just declare bankruptcy and leave it creditors to fight over the carrion; all that would do is force the Wilpons to sell to someone who can make good on the debt.


From what I can tell, all the bonds still trade above par. So, no, no one expects the bonds not to be good.
   6. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 08:44 PM (#4337401)
Did Wright get a no-trade clause?
   7. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 02, 2013 at 08:47 PM (#4337408)
Mets 2012 attendance - 2.242m
Lowest attendance of any major league team in 2012 = 1.560m Tampa
Lowest attendance, Mets, since 1982 = 1.713m

Mets 2012 payroll $94m.
Loss of revenue, if the Mets attendance drops to Tampa levels, and assuming $100*** net per ticket = $68,200,000.

Hmm--this is all just wildass guessing, but if it's anywhere close to the ball park, the Mets don't do well by dropping payroll as much as possible.


edit: "From what I can tell, all the bonds still trade above par. So, no, no one expects the bonds not to be good."

Isn't it more a case that the chances that the bonds won't be good are very, very small, and calculated into the ratings drop and the trading price?



***I have no idea whatsoever if this is correct.

   8. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 08:52 PM (#4337420)
Isn't it more a case that the chances that the bonds won't be good are very, very small, and calculated into the ratings drop and the trading price?

I assuming they were issued at par, pre-Madoff, when the Met's were healthy.

The fact that they're still above par partially reflects an above market interest rate (rates have fallen a lot since then), but shows there's no serious fear of a default.
   9. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 02, 2013 at 08:53 PM (#4337423)
According to

http://major-league-baseball-franchises.findthedata.org/q/3/2495/What-is-the-average-ticket-price-at-a-New-York-Mets-game

the average ticket price to a 2012 Mets home game was $27.24,

while,

According to ontheblack.com at

http://www.ontheblack.com/2012/08/08/dickeys-impact-on-2012-ticket-prices/

it was $71.79. Hmmm....

Okay--Megdal ball parks one ticket as being worth $100 to the Mets in revenue, and if that's constant, and attendance stays above 1,700,000 with a $40m payroll, that's a net plus for the Wilpons from the gate.

No idea how it might affect TV revenue, which is obviously meaningful, and might completely wreck the point of dropping payroll substantially.


edit: re #8, agreed.

.
   10. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 08:55 PM (#4337427)
Loss of revenue, if the Mets attendance drops to Tampa levels, and assuming $100*** net per ticket = $68,200,000.

Quick Googling suggests that the average Met ticket price is in the $25-30 range.
   11. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:03 PM (#4337434)
I was thinking specifically of revenue from each ticket buyer while at the park (including ticket price, concessions, parking...), rather than the revenue only from the ticket purchase.
   12. J.R. Wolf Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:05 PM (#4337437)
Just when you think the Mets have finally hit rock bottom, they surprise you and prove you wrong.
   13. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:09 PM (#4337441)
I was thinking specifically of revenue from each ticket buyer while at the park (including ticket price, concessions, parking...), rather than the revenue only from the ticket purchase.

OK. I think $100 is high, even for gross revenue, and the Mets don't get near 100% of parking and concessions.
   14. NattyBoh Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:58 PM (#4337493)
This kind of reporting isn't going to get Megdal his press pass back for 2013.
   15. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 02, 2013 at 11:39 PM (#4337650)
How about an actual baseball discussion? What do you guys expect of Johan Santana on 2013? He was very good in his first 16 starts of the season. He put up a 2.76 ERA and a 1.09 WHIP in 98 innings with a 93/33 k/bb ratio.

He obviously fell apart but I think that was kind of a fluke. I think he could put up a 3.25-3.50 ERA next year.
   16. Squash Posted: January 03, 2013 at 01:41 AM (#4337732)
I think he could put up a 3.25-3.50 ERA next year.

He could, the question of course is in how many innings. In thinking about it I keep revising down the number I expect.
   17. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 03, 2013 at 07:07 AM (#4337753)

Amazin’! Mets owners refi $450M in loans

The owners of the Mets have scored some financial relief.

After a months-long process, team owners Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz have refinanced $450 million in loans borrowed against cable network SportsNet New York, which airs Mets games, The Post has learned.

While the financial terms could not be learned, some of the proceeds are expected to go toward funding the cash-strapped team’s day-to-day operations.

The Mets declined comment. SNY did not return calls for comment. ...
   18. HowardMegdal Posted: January 03, 2013 at 07:35 AM (#4337760)
Kosman's news is big, and the details of how much they got/if any dates were pushed back for the big debts. It is cannibalizing their last remaining profit center for some extra time, so they better have made it count!
   19. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 03, 2013 at 07:44 AM (#4337764)
The huge Dodgers sale and other recent MLB TV deals probably made this refinancing deal a fait accompli for the Mets owners many months ago, but it will be interesting to see how much time this bought them.
   20. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 03, 2013 at 08:02 AM (#4337776)
How about an actual baseball discussion? What do you guys expect of Johan Santana on 2013?


That's more of a medical discussion, isn't it?

He obviously fell apart but I think that was kind of a fluke.


What was the diagnosis? I wasn't following the team very closely at the time. I'm concerned, though. After missing a season, a pitcher over 30 can only pitch 117 innings? He's so good he might have something like the last several years of Bret Saberhagen's career left, which someone once described as "still brilliant, but for ever decreasing moments in time". Santana had back inflammation, ankle problems at one point, and his pitching arm gets stapled to his shoulder before starts, of course.

Seems wrong, somehow, that Santana needs to tack on a whole lot of medicrity to get into the Hall of Fame. I think I'm turning into more of a peak voter as time goes by, as a result of facts like that. How do you see his chances?

As for the rest of the team, I'm assuming there's no chance D'Arnaud breaks camp with the big-league club, and I'm not counting on Johan. I don't think we're looking at any FA surprises, so...

Niese, Harvey, Wheeler (?), Gee, Hefner (?)
Tejada, Murphy, Davis, Wright, Duda, Nieuwenhuis, RFer (Baxter?), Buck

Is Hairston definitely going elsewhere?
I've lost track of the pen. So has the front office, probably. There's Parnell. Francisco is on the second year of a two year deal. It's too soon for this team to put Mejia in the bullpen. Rauch is gone...


re #13--$100 was Howard Megdal's number. If he's still around, maybe he can tell us where he got that figure from.
   21. Swedish Chef Posted: January 03, 2013 at 08:09 AM (#4337781)
Hey, wait a minute, if the loans are secured by Citifield itself, then a Mets default is not very nice for the creditors, they get a single-purpose stadium with one possible tenant (because the Mets can veto any move to put Rays or something there), while the Mets can threaten to move somewhere else.
   22. depletion Posted: January 03, 2013 at 08:14 AM (#4337782)
Do the Mets have any plans to bring Ronny Cedeno back? He is a free agent as of Oct. 29 (baseball-reference). He did well last year (OPS +104, and better fielding than Murphy), and I thought they should have considered trading Murphy for an outfielder and putting Ronny at 2B. I suppose the risk of of that move is Murphy hitting .320 again, to be balanced with the risk that Murphy would get injured fielding 2B again.
   23. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 03, 2013 at 08:30 AM (#4337790)
Actually, it'll take more than extended mediocrity for Santana to get to the Hall. He'd need 1235 innings with an OPS+ of 112 to get to Curt Schilling's career numbers. There are a lot of reasons Schilling's numbers wouldn't work for Santana, but I don't have the time right now for a better comp.

For the moment,

Santana 139-79 2026 IP 136 OPS+
Schilling 216-146 3261 IP 127 OPS+

1235 innings of 112 OPS+ with a 77-67 W-L record makes their regular season records equal, for whatever that's worth. Johan'll be going into his age 34 season in 2013. 3200 innings isn't a long career for a HOFer, but to get even to that number he'll have to pitch another 7 seasons of 168 innings a season. Given his injury history, that's unlikely. Too bad. I would have guessed he had some chance, but he's not going to be pitching until he's 40.


re 22: Cedeno had his career year at 29, with an OPS+ about 20 points higher than any other season, and that left him 1.6 bWAR below replacement level for his career. And he might be one of the Mets' better options. They actually sent Omar Qunitanilla and his career OPS+ of 50 out for 80 PAs.
   24. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 03, 2013 at 08:34 AM (#4337791)
Seems wrong, somehow, that Santana needs to tack on a whole lot of medicrity to get into the Hall of Fame. I think I'm turning into more of a peak voter as time goes by, as a result of facts like that. How do you see his chances?
I'm generally a peak voter, but my concern with Santana is that his peak wasn't actually all that high. He was great, but there are a lot of pitchers who've been that kind of great for three to five years. How much better, at his best, was Santana than Kevin Appier, Dave Stieb, Bret Saberhagen, or David Cone? Five-year peaks by bWAR:

9.4, 7.5, 6.9, 6.5, 5.3 - Cone
8.4, 7.3, 6.9, 6.9, 4.7 - Santana
9.0, 7.7, 6.1, 5.6, 5.3 - Appier
7.6, 7.3, 6.7, 6.6, 6.5 - Stieb
9.2, 7.7, 7.5, 6.8, 4.9 - Saberhagen

Strike credit matters a ton for Cone, whose best seasons were 94-95. I did a pure extrapolation to a 162-game season to get strike credit, you can regress his best two seasons a little if you prefer. Appier's third-best, Saberhagen's third-best, and Stieb's fourth-best seasons also involve some strike credit.

It's hard for me to see how Santana is a clearly better peak candidate than these dudes.
   25. billyshears Posted: January 03, 2013 at 08:35 AM (#4337793)
What do you guys expect of Johan Santana on 2013?


I expect him to pitch like it's 2004 through June and then for Sandy Alderson to trade him for Oscar Taveras. I'm only half kidding.
   26. Rants Mulliniks Posted: January 03, 2013 at 08:58 AM (#4337802)
For some reason I've never thought of Santana as a likely HOFer, at any point in his career. I'm not saying my opinion is correct. He was superb from '04 (his first year exclusively starting) through '10 (151 ERA+, 3 ERA titles and 3 K titles) but really got jobbed on the win total, winning less than half his starts despite a 2.87 ERA over that period. It is a good peak, but he's only had five seasons of 200 or more IP, and I'd be surprised if he has another one.
   27. Conor Posted: January 03, 2013 at 09:14 AM (#4337810)
Santana hurt his ankle in a start against the Cubs. He was already getting hit pretty hard in that start before he hurt his ankle, but from the time he hurt his ankle until his season ended he was unfathomably bad. 31 runs allowed in 15 innings pitched. He was doing a little worse since the 134 pitches in the no hitter, and it's probably a little too convenient to say he was so bad because the ankle was hurt, but he was so historically bad after the ankle injury that it must've played a pretty significant role. (or some other injury, I guess).

But he's also basically been hurt every year since he came to the Mets (had knee surgery right after the season in 2008), so it would seem realistic to expect something less than a full season.

Santana's 5 year peak was 1168 IP with a 157 ERA+.

Appier's best 5 year stretch was 995 IP with a 146 ERA+ (needs some strike credit, I guess.) Cone was 967 IP with a 142 ERA+. Stieb was 1284 IP with a 144 ERA+.

Santana seems to be a little above those guys, who all have their peaks in the 145 ERA+ range.

In his 5 year peak, Santana lead the league in ERA+ 3 times, (and was second once) WHIP 4 times, strikeouts 3 times (and was second the other 2 years), and IP twice (and was second twice).

His peak doesn't match up to the all time greats of recent past, guys like Pedro or Randy or Maddux, but I think it's better than the guys you mentioned. Not making any comment on his HOF chances though.
   28. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 03, 2013 at 09:19 AM (#4337811)
Santana feels to me like a little peakier Ron Guidry (note: I discount ERA+ during the "sillyball era" a good bit; seems to have been very easy to throw up huge ERA+). That doesn't cut it for the HoF.
   29. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 03, 2013 at 10:19 AM (#4337839)
re 22: Cedeno had his career year at 29, with an OPS+ about 20 points higher than any other season


meh, less than 200 Pas, Cedeno actually had his career year at age 24 in the PCL
   30. HowardMegdal Posted: January 03, 2013 at 10:57 AM (#4337888)
20. Actually, The larger number comes from Jeffrey Toobin's article, the smaller number from Forbes. Explained within this piece:

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/sports/2012/09/6536279/wilpons-mets-are-still-shrinking
   31. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 03, 2013 at 11:36 AM (#4337923)
Santana feels to me like a little peakier Ron Guidry (note: I discount ERA+ during the "sillyball era" a good bit; seems to have been very easy to throw up huge ERA+). That doesn't cut it for the HoF.
There is greater variance in ERA when league ERA is higher. This is accounted for by WAR because when more runs are scored, it takes more runs (or more runs prevented) to win a game. In Santana in 2005, 75 runs prevented above replacement equaled about 6.9 WAR, while at Stieb's peak in 1984 75 runs prevented above replacement translated to 7.6 WAR.
   32. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 04, 2013 at 04:43 AM (#4338736)
Matt--One reason I picked Schilling's won loss record is because it's a cut above a lot of HOVG pitchers--it seems like the minimum wins you'd need without a hellacious peak; an inner circle peak. I wasn't thinking specifically of the four you mentioned, but it does happen that 216 wins would put Santana well ahead of all of them, and I don't think that's coincidental.

Cone had 194 wins. Appier had 169. Stieb had 176. Sabes had 167. If Santana gets to 216 wins, he isn't going to need to do better than the peak of those guys, who averaged 177 wins for their careers. A guy with 177 wins needs a near historic peak to make the HOF. A guy with 216 wins doesn't.

In short, I don't think anyone looks at Dave Stieb's career and thinks the reason the BBWAA didn't put him in the Hall was his lack of enough of a peak. It's not his peak that's keeping him out and, if he gets to 216 wins, it shouldn't be his peak that keeps Santana out.

To go back to Schilling, he only got Cy votes in four seasons, over a span of 7 years. He was voted 4th, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd. No voter is going to look at that and decide it's better than Santana's Cy shares, which unlike Schilling's came in consecutive years, and went 7th, 1st, 3rd, 1st, 5th, 3rd.

We may be talking at cross-purposes. I was talking about the actual HOF and its voters, whereas you used pitching WAR, which I doubt most voters use, or are even aware of. I do think Santana's Cy shares peak, coming in consecutive seasons, is much more impressive to voters than one that's spread out. YMMV.


edit: Howard--thanks for the link. So Toobin puts add'l revenue at $125 per fan, Forbes puts it at $23 per fan. Interesting...

   33. billyshears Posted: January 04, 2013 at 07:43 AM (#4338752)
This is the first time I've taken a close look at Stieb's career in awhile, but I have to ask, how was he so good? His K/BB ratio rarely hovered above 2-1 (and even then, not by much). He didn't suppress HRs at an extraordinary rate. I can't find a GB/FB ratios for him pre-1988, but he wasn't an extreme groundball pitcher for the years I can find. He just kind of seems like a DIPS outlier.
   34. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 04, 2013 at 08:13 AM (#4338760)
Matt--One reason I picked Schilling's won loss record is because it's a cut above a lot of HOVG pitchers--it seems like the minimum wins you'd need without a hellacious peak; an inner circle peak. I wasn't thinking specifically of the four you mentioned, but it does happen that 216 wins would put Santana well ahead of all of them, and I don't think that's coincidental.

Cone had 194 wins. Appier had 169. Stieb had 176. Sabes had 167. If Santana gets to 216 wins, he isn't going to need to do better than the peak of those guys, who averaged 177 wins for their careers. A guy with 177 wins needs a near historic peak to make the HOF. A guy with 216 wins doesn't.
Yeah, as you said, I was talking about "should" not "would."

But in this case, I think the two points converge. Johan Santana has won 139 games. To win 220 or so, he needs 80 more wins. That requires at least either 5-6 more prime seasons or 3-4 prime seasons and 3-4 solid decline years. We're looking at a minimum of 1200 more innings, probably 1500+ innings. Basically, that's Santana tacking on nearly 75% of his current career, without quite the level of peak. If Santana achieves what "would" put him in, he will also almost certainly have achieved what "should" put him in, and he'll have significantly passed most of the Stieb group on career/prime value.

To contextualize the innings, we're looking at 3200 IP as the minimum reasonable total for a 220-win Santana, and more likely in the range of 3500+. Davids Cone and Stieb lead their group with a little under 2900 IP, and Saberhagen and Appier didn't clear 2600.
   35. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 04, 2013 at 08:55 AM (#4338776)
I can't find a GB/FB ratios for him pre-1988, but he wasn't an extreme groundball pitcher for the years I can find. He just kind of seems like a DIPS outlier.
Yeah, he's a big one. Career .263 BABIP over nearly 3000 innings pitched. That's mostly skill in a sample that large.

Tango's awesome DIPS spreadsheet has Stieb outperforming his teammates by .019 in BABIP, which is roughly equal (using simple linear weights) to 0.45 points of ERA. So, if Stieb had been merely average at hit prevention, he'd have had an ERA+ of 108 or so (compared to actual 122). A moderately above average pitcher, but nothing special.

Stieb goes on the list with Tom Seaver, Sid Fernandez, Andy Messersmith, and Fergie Jenkins of pitchers whose greatness (or goodness) was quite significantly a function of their ability to prevent hits.
   36. The District Attorney Posted: January 04, 2013 at 12:35 PM (#4338994)
   37. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 04, 2013 at 08:58 PM (#4339407)
@36: the loan looks like straightforward refinancing, but there are almost no details. I suppose the 'additional funds' could be anything from 5m to 250m. No idea from the article what it portends for the team. It could be something as simple as debt consolidation, slightly better repayment terms...
   38. I am going to be Frank Posted: January 04, 2013 at 09:34 PM (#4339420)
Does anyone know how much the current local TV contract pays the Mets/Sports NY and how long it goes for?

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
TedBerg
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(5213 - 1:27am, Dec 22)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogThe right — and wrong — way for Mets to get Tulowitzki | New York Post
(14 - 1:01am, Dec 22)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(9270 - 12:29am, Dec 22)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(176 - 12:14am, Dec 22)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

Hall of Merit2015 Hall of Merit Ballot
(96 - 11:51pm, Dec 21)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogDetermining Hall vote is no easy task | New York Post
(29 - 11:40pm, Dec 21)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogJUNICHI TAZAWA & CULTURE OF DENIAL
(4 - 11:37pm, Dec 21)
Last: Steve Parris, Je t'aime

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(776 - 11:33pm, Dec 21)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogMarty Noble's HOF Ballot
(45 - 11:32pm, Dec 21)
Last: bobm

NewsblogThe Yankees’ plan in case A-Rod can’t play at all
(25 - 10:12pm, Dec 21)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogOT: Soccer December 2014
(344 - 9:50pm, Dec 21)
Last: Mefisto

Hall of MeritHerman Long
(11 - 9:22pm, Dec 21)
Last: Joey Numbaz (Scruff)

NewsblogThe Jeff Jacobs HOF Ballot: Keep The Voting Serious And Fair
(55 - 9:14pm, Dec 21)
Last: Ron J

NewsblogRuben Amaro Jr. says it would be best if Phillies move on from Ryan Howard
(46 - 9:11pm, Dec 21)
Last: Mom makes botox doctors furious

Hall of Merit2015 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(107 - 9:08pm, Dec 21)
Last: Joey Numbaz (Scruff)

Page rendered in 0.4157 seconds
48 querie(s) executed