Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

A’s - Acquire Bradley

Oakland A’s - Acquired OF Milton Bradley and IF Antonio Perez from the Los Angeles Dodgers for OF Andre Ethier.

Losing Ethier definitely stings a bit.  However, the A’s were in a tight place as they absolutely have to upgrade the offense and most of the good options are gone now.  Ethier has a lot of potential, but the need is now and even though Bradley’s a complete pain, he’s also a complete pain who can hit and play defense in center.  Kotsay’s obviously the current centerfielder but almost certainly ends up in left after a disappointing defensive season in ‘05.  Getting Antonio Perez is a nice bonus - he’s not a great defensive player, but he’s underrated at 3rd (though rather mediocre in the middle), he’s in his prime and he can hit a little bit.  Of course, one could say that about Keith Ginter too and look what happened to him in 2005.

Ethier will start the season with the Dodgers, but they’ll call him up sometime this season if he hits.

The A’s got what they needed in this trade, though they gave up real value.  The Dodgers pretty much had to trade Bradley at this point and they got a lot more for him than they might have.

2006 ZiPS Projections
———————————————————————————————————
Player     AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB   BA   OBP   SLG
———————————————————————————————————
Bradley     416 70 124 27 1 14 70 56 84 12 .298 .385 .499
Ethier     441 67 114 19 2 11 51 29 83   1 .259 .315 .385
Perez     390 67 107 20 3 11 59 37 92 15 .274 .347 .426

 

Dan Szymborski Posted: December 14, 2005 at 02:39 AM | 56 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

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. Spivey Posted: December 14, 2005 at 03:03 AM (#1776336)
On this site, you see strawmen attacked vigor and fury. But (and I know that this is going to probably start some sort of ridiculous debate), this is probably about as ridiculous as they get:

James Myers, Petco's chief financial officer, said the company's highest priority is concern and care for animals. PETA's underlying motivation in attacking Petco, Myers said, is that it "doesn't believe people should have pets."
   2. DCA Posted: December 14, 2005 at 04:10 AM (#1776412)
Kotsay's obviously the current centerfielder but almost certainly ends up in left after a disappointing defensive season in '05.

Wouldn't we be more likely to see Kotsay in right and Swisher in left? I assume it's Kotsay's range, not his arm, that didn't show up last year. I say assume, because he looked just fine out there whenever I was watching him.
   3. esseff Posted: December 14, 2005 at 04:14 AM (#1776415)
Sounds for now like it's Payton in left, Kotsay in center, Bradley in right, Swisher at 1b and Johnson at DH. But it's also possible they'll trade an OF, Payton or Kotsay, in which case they all get reshuffled and the A's still could have a spot for Frank Thomas.
   4. Dr. Vaux Posted: December 14, 2005 at 04:43 AM (#1776431)
ZIPS with my playing time projection has the A's with their present roster at 90-72. I might do the Angels later.
   5. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 14, 2005 at 05:56 AM (#1776480)
I'm not as high on Ethier as most people so I think this is a great deal. Perez being able to fill in for Chavez when his shoulder is cranky is definitely a plus. Macha's going to earn his money with Bradley though. Add Frank Thomas, dump Cruz and we're all set.
   6. Iwakuma Chameleon (jonathan) Posted: December 14, 2005 at 06:02 AM (#1776482)
I'm afraid Billy's just sorta in love with Milton circa 2003, when it should be clear he's never really going to play at that level again, nor should he have in the first place. It was a flukey year, plain and simple.

I like it for the time being, but I was much more excited about 2007 with what couldve been a very young, cheap, potent lineup, and now I'm not so sure that lineup is ever going to materialize, which is somewhat dissapointing.



My gut instinct says Ethier will blow up in Billy's face, but time will tell, and for this season it certainly helps, though I wouldn't say it's the necessary type of move that clearly puts us ahead of the Angels or anything like that. As far as I'm concerned we should still be considered the underdog in this division.


Moreover, I'm starting to get disturbed by this offseason's trend of getting less cheap and young, and more expensive and old. (Loaiza, Bradley, Zito possibly Thomas in favor of, so far, Ethier and whatever Zito could have netted.)
   7. akrasian Posted: December 14, 2005 at 06:25 AM (#1776495)
I suspect Bradley's projection is a bit high. He shows flashes like that, then falls in love with his homeruns and hits poorly for a while. He'll make the occasional boneheaded mistake in the outfield, but overall he is very good though.

I have no idea if Ethier's projection is accurate. However, Logan White did spend most of the AFL watching Ethier (since the A's prospects and Dodger prospects played on the same team). He supposedly gave the thumbs up to the trade, which makes me think that Ethier is rated far more highly among the scouting community than is typical for a recent A's draftee.

Since a lot of people thought that Joel Guzman would finally make his move from shortstop this coming year, this creates a logjam in Vegas. Loney will be playing first base there. Delwyn Young was expected to play left there (after being moved to the outfield in instructional league). LaRoche will be at Vegas at third base at some point in time this season, if not to start the year. Ethier will be in the corner outfield now. Does Guzman stay at shortstop for another year? Do they try to play Ethier in center, even though nobody thinks he's fast enough for that? Does Young move back to second, even though his future seems to be in left?

FWIW, both players traded by the Dodgers had worn out their welcomes. Bradley we know about. Less known is that Perez fought learning to play third, until the Dodgers threatened to leave him at his rehab assignment in April until they had to cut him. He also made no effort to learn the outfield when the Dodgers wanted to play him there - they gave up on him after a couple of days. Maybe he just doesn't have the skillset for the outfield, but I doubt it. He seemed to sulk that the Dodgers gave 2b to Jeff Kent instead of him.
   8. Jesse Posted: December 14, 2005 at 06:26 AM (#1776496)
Ethier will start the season with the Dodgers, but they'll call him up sometime this season if he hits.

Do you mean he'll be sent to the minors?

The Dodger outfield is such a mess that I can see somebody hitting .400 in spring training and getting a job. It could be Ethier, it could be Steve Finley.
   9. SABRJoe Posted: December 14, 2005 at 06:29 AM (#1776499)
I'm not as high on Ethier

Pun intended?
   10. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 14, 2005 at 06:30 AM (#1776500)
Moreover, I'm starting to get disturbed by this offseason's trend of getting less cheap and young, and more expensive and old. (Loaiza, Bradley, Zito possibly Thomas in favor of, so far, Ethier and whatever Zito could have netted.)

Don't forget the draft pick forfeited for Loaiza. Still I don't care about cheap or young. I think this team is much better than the one before the Loaiza signing and the Bradley trade for 2006. It's a World Series contender now, and will be more so if Frank Thomas is signed. It was not really a World Series contender with Kielty as the everyday DH and a couple of injuries away from 7-20 months.

It's not impossible (merely highly unlikely) that Zito will be signed long term.
   11. akrasian Posted: December 14, 2005 at 06:35 AM (#1776505)
Obviously a typo. He won't start the season with the team, but could be called up.

I expect the Dodgers to sign a free agent OFer, to fill a hole. Drew in one spot, FA in the second, Cruz/Ledee/Werth (once recovered from the wrist injury that hurt him so much in 2005) fighting for the third - actually, a platoon is a possibility.

But various outfielders will go on the dl during the season, and Ethier will be a possibility for a callup.
   12. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: December 14, 2005 at 06:46 AM (#1776509)
Just eyeballing the numbers, I think that the ZIPS for Bradley is a tad optimistic. IMHO, .385/.500 probably represents a near best case scenario--maybe not quite 90th percentile range, but its certainly more 75th than 50th, to borrow PECOTA's projection framework.

My quick-and-dirty means of evaluating a projection is to ask myself if it's as likely that he'll underperform as he is to overperform. In Bradley's case, it seems more likely that he will hit .360/.450 than .410/.550, so the over/under should be more in the neighborhood of .350/.450 (the odds of him hitting .325/.400 are about as likely as .375/.500).
   13. Iwakuma Chameleon (jonathan) Posted: December 14, 2005 at 07:05 AM (#1776522)
Don't forget the draft pick forfeited for Loaiza. Still I don't care about cheap or young. I think this team is much better than the one before the Loaiza signing and the Bradley trade for 2006. It's a World Series contender now, and will be more so if Frank Thomas is signed. It was not really a World Series contender with Kielty as the everyday DH and a couple of injuries away from 7-20 months.

It's not impossible (merely highly unlikely) that Zito will be signed long term.



I generally agree with that sentiment, my only issue being that I thought we had the talent in place, tha if we had kept Ethier/draft picks/money (not spending on Loaiza/Thomas)/even more young talent acquired for Zito, that we could have been a real huge powerhouse come 2007 or 2008, whereas now it just seems we'll be a contender that will more resemble the 03-04 A's than the 00-02 version.
   14. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 14, 2005 at 07:18 AM (#1776533)
Jonathan, did you consider Ethier as a probable above average starter in the majors? I never thought of him as a part of the future core. Payton/Kotsay/Bradley/Swisher/Johnson at OF/1B/DH is what I considered the present. Maybe add Frank (Don't let Backlasher call me Charles)Thomas. Replace Payton and Johnson with Barton and one of Herrera/Robnett in a few years.
   15. DCW3 Posted: December 14, 2005 at 07:54 AM (#1776550)
Just eyeballing the numbers, I think that the ZIPS for Bradley is a tad optimistic. IMHO, .385/.500 probably represents a near best case scenario--maybe not quite 90th percentile range, but its certainly more 75th than 50th, to borrow PECOTA's projection framework.

My quick-and-dirty means of evaluating a projection is to ask myself if it's as likely that he'll underperform as he is to overperform. In Bradley's case, it seems more likely that he will hit .360/.450 than .410/.550, so the over/under should be more in the neighborhood of .350/.450 (the odds of him hitting .325/.400 are about as likely as .375/.500).


Mojo (park-adjusted Marcels) projects Bradley at .286/.371/.459.
   16. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 14, 2005 at 08:08 AM (#1776562)
JC Brabury at THT sees the following projected OPS for 2006:

Bradley -- .799
Perez -- .672
Ginter -- .758
Scutaro -- .720

So Perez is going to suck.
   17. DCW3 Posted: December 14, 2005 at 08:11 AM (#1776565)
JC Brabury at THT sees the following projected OPS for 2006:

If that's purely based on 2005 numbers (and adjustments thereto), and it looks like it is, that's got to be pretty much worthless.
   18. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 14, 2005 at 08:34 AM (#1776575)
DCW3, why do you hate batted ball data so? Is it really worthless or just in its infancy and not yet proven? If it's really worthless why does THT publish it?
   19. DCW3 Posted: December 14, 2005 at 08:48 AM (#1776578)
Okay, maybe it's not *worthless*, and there's probably some value in looking at the batted ball data, but I have to think that a method that takes the past three or four years into account is going to be vastly preferable for predictive purposes than one that just looks at last years' data, no matter how many adjustments they make. (This is one of those cases where I want MGL to show up and have my back.) I mean, just scanning down the first couple letters there, the 95th percentile projection for Carlos Beltran is .796. Uh-huh. Now, if they averaged batted-ball data for the past few years, then you might have something.
   20. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 14, 2005 at 08:54 AM (#1776583)
Aren't Beltran's and Bradley's recent EqA's roughly equivalent? So why does it strike you as wrong that their projected OPS would be similar? Or do you think they're both too high or too low?

Also, agreed on the weakness of using one year data to make projections.
   21. DCW3 Posted: December 14, 2005 at 09:04 AM (#1776586)
Aren't Beltran's and Bradley's recent EqA's roughly equivalent? So why does it strike you as wrong that their projected OPS would be similar? Or do you think they're both too high or too low?

I think Bradley should be projected somewhat better than Beltran. But that .799 projection you quoted for Bradley is his median projection (assuming I'm reading the chart right). Bradley's 5th percentile projection (.751) is higher than Beltran's median projection (.745). Now that strikes me as wring.
   22. DCW3 Posted: December 14, 2005 at 09:05 AM (#1776587)
Urm, "wrong."
   23. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: December 14, 2005 at 09:13 AM (#1776588)
Aren't Beltran's and Bradley's recent EqA's roughly equivalent? So why does it strike you as wrong that their projected OPS would be similar? Or do you think they're both too high or too low?

No, a good projection system should not put Beltran and Bradley as equals. Here's why: Beltran has roughly twice as many PAs over the past three years, ie a much larger sample size. While the rates are similar, the much smaller sample for Bradley means that you have to regress his expected production toward the league average to a much larger degree than you need to do for Beltran.

Given how poor Beltran 2005 was, an .800 OPS projection is probably what the data indicate (although if he's healthy, subjectively I'd expect him to easily outperform that). On the other hand, Bradley's expected true talent is more like .750 despite production rates similar to Beltran because that production has to discounted for the small sample.
   24. DCW3 Posted: December 14, 2005 at 09:23 AM (#1776589)
I hear what you're saying 6-4-3, but there are two problems:

1) Beltran only has 44% more PAs than Bradley over the past three years, not "twice as many."

2) Bradley has actually been not just similar to, but better than Beltran over the past three years (at least by OPS+), so the additional regression would move them toward being equals, not to Beltran being superior.

I think you can also get away with not using a larger regression for Bradley if you understand that the confidence interval for his projection is going to be larger than Beltran's.
   25. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 14, 2005 at 09:25 AM (#1776591)
Bradley's 5th percentile projection (.751) is higher than Beltran's median projection (.745). Now that strikes me as wring.

Oops. Sorry.
   26. DCW3 Posted: December 14, 2005 at 09:30 AM (#1776592)
I think you can also get away with not using a larger regression for Bradley if you understand that the confidence interval for his projection is going to be larger than Beltran's.

Well, maybe not. That's not really stated well. But at least in the case of Beltran vs. Bradley, I don't think it's going to make a major difference.
   27. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: December 14, 2005 at 10:11 AM (#1776605)
Hmm, I was thinking that Bradley had closer to 300 PAs in 2004 than 600. So I'll concede the first point, obviously. Still, Beltran has about a season's worth (597 PA) more time than Bradley over the past three years, which is pretty considerable difference.

Using an unweighted three-year average of OPS+, Bradley is 125 over 1363 PA and Beltran 119 over 1960 PA. Doing some quick and dirty regression, when we factor in the 597 difference at league average production, Bradley's OPS+ drops to 118--so actually Beltran is the superior hitter (by a hair).

But anecdotally there is reason to believe that Beltran's problems 2005 (which were well off his 2003-4 numbers) had a good deal to do with a plethora of injuries (quad strain, concussion, etc) that diminished the quality of his play over most of the season. If he's healthy (and his injuries are reported to be recoverable with rest and rehab), it's reasonable to expect that his 95 OPS+ is less representative of his true talent than the level he established in prior years.

Furthermore, FWIW Will Carroll seems to think that Bradley could continue to be hampered by the damaged patella tendon and ACL in 2006 (see his 08/25/05 column if you're a BBPro subscriber). So beyond the statistics of the two players, there's some basis for believing that Beltran's a better bet for 2006 than Bradley (without touching the attitude crap).

And finally, if Bradley's moved to RF (as seems to be the A's plan at present), than he loses not only some defensive value, but the marginal value of his offense loses quite a bit. All other things being equal, a 120 OPS centerfielder is quite a bit more valuable than a 120 OPS rightfielder. Not that the latter isn't an asset, but his marginal offensive value is diminished by moving down the defensive spectrum.
   28. DCW3 Posted: December 14, 2005 at 10:19 AM (#1776609)
Okay, here's a better version of what i was trying to say earlier: even with the extra degree of regression to Bradley's projection, you'd still have less confidence in his projection than in Beltran's because it's based on a smaller sample. So, as long as you keep that fact in mind, is the extra regression really worth adding? I don't know, I'm asking.
   29. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: December 14, 2005 at 10:32 AM (#1776611)
I don't know if there's one correct answer. From what I remember of my formal training with statistical modeling on commodity pricing was that to make a true apples-to-apples comparison you should stick with the same confidence interval for all commodities that you are comparing. Should sample size issues arise, then you compensate by making that projection more conservative (ie, closer to the population mean). MGL, Dial, or another poster more fluent in statistical theory could probably explain the idea more clearly.
   30. Russ Posted: December 14, 2005 at 01:25 PM (#1776639)
Since the Pirates seem absolutely deadset on screwing over Nate McLouth,

a) Would the Dodgers be interested?
b) Do they have any third basemen with decent upsides they could trade us?
   31. OlePerfesser Posted: December 14, 2005 at 03:31 PM (#1776800)
So, where does Erubiel Durazo end up?

In any case, taking a chance on Milton Bradley's personality strikes me as a pretty good wager. Being an a-hole is--or should be--one of those things it's possible to change. Not easy, mind you, but possible. Certainly easier than developing running speed or hand-eye coordination or ability to hit the curve.

My guess is Ron Washington will be tasked to mentor Milton this year; if he helps Milton grow up, he's a cinch for the Most Valuable Coach award.
   32. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: December 14, 2005 at 03:49 PM (#1776823)
So, where does Erubiel Durazo end up?

Chicago White Sox.
   33. It's a shame about Athletic Supporter Posted: December 14, 2005 at 06:34 PM (#1777193)
I doubt Kotsay is moving off center. Teams generally don't move players they sign to three-year extensions for a lot of money off their current position unless the player wants to and/or is media-maligned with respect to their defense. One year of bad-by-sabermetric defense qualifies Kotsay for neither.

I think it's more likely Kotsay gets traded than that he moves off center.

I still love this deal, mostly because I agree with Ivan that Ethier will not turn into a decent major-league starter. He had one good year. Not young. In the Texas League. With no track record previously. And it wasn't even that good.

I still hate the Loaiza deal.
   34. Mister High Standards Posted: December 14, 2005 at 06:59 PM (#1777219)

Getting Antonio Perez is a nice bonus - he's not a great defensive player, but he's underrated at 3rd (though rather mediocre in the middle),


Dan I think that is wrong. Perez can play third on a fill in basis, but is very poor their for anything but a short trial.

While passable at 2b, he very close to being unplayable regularly as well.

Playing him at SS is a disaster.

He isn't a good defender and needs to hit to justify a roster spot.
   35. chris p Posted: December 14, 2005 at 07:24 PM (#1777262)
Dan I think that is wrong. Perez can play third on a fill in basis, but is very poor their for anything but a short trial.

weren't there stories that he refused to work at his D anywhere but 2nd?
   36. It's a shame about Athletic Supporter Posted: December 15, 2005 at 01:55 AM (#1777887)
In the other thread, someone mentioned that Bradley and Macha are sure to get into it sometime. This is another positive for the deal. I bet Bradley could kill Macha in a no-holds-barred fight. Then, no more Macha.
   37. akrasian Posted: December 15, 2005 at 06:03 AM (#1778133)
weren't there stories that he refused to work at his D anywhere but 2nd?

Yes. Going into spring training, the plan was to platoon him with Valentin at third. He knew this for most of the offseason, but was unprepared. Then the first week of the regular season he got hurt. After healing, the Dodgers sent him to Vegas on a rehab assignment, and he fought them playing him at third in Vegas - even though he knew that was the position he would be playing in the majors. He finally relented when (supposedly) the Dodgers told him that he wouldn't be a Dodger after his rehab assignment if he didn't work out at third.

Then when the Dodgers desperately needed outfielders (at one point all 5 predicted outfielders going into spring training were either on the dl, or should have been and were toughing it out because the team had nobody else) the Dodgers tried moving Perez to left field. They gave up after a couple of days of John Shelby working with him - they decided that it just wasn't going to happen. I have a hard time believing that a young former shortstop just couldn't handle the outfield - rather obviously he fought the move, even though it would have given him more playing time.

Basically, he wants to hit and play middle infield. Shame. Maybe this dumping will awaken him.
   38. Dan Fords cousin Posted: December 15, 2005 at 08:47 PM (#1779050)
I bet Bradley could kill Macha in a no-holds-barred fight. Then, no more Macha.

I think Macha has a black belt in some kind of martial arts (Karate, tae-kwon do etc.) so it might actually be an interesting fight....
   39. JMM Posted: December 15, 2005 at 08:54 PM (#1779059)
Dan I think that is wrong. Perez can play third on a fill in basis, but is very poor their for anything but a short trial. While passable at 2b, he very close to being unplayable regularly as well. Playing him at SS is a disaster. He isn't a good defender and needs to hit to justify a roster spot.

I think we know Ron Washington's main task during Spring Training.
   40. Danny Posted: December 15, 2005 at 09:01 PM (#1779081)
I think Macha has a black belt in some kind of martial arts (Karate, tae-kwon do etc.) so it might actually be an interesting fight....

Brown belt in tae kwon do.

I think we know Ron Washington's main task during Spring Training.

This trade may have doubled his duties.
   41. Tripon Posted: August 08, 2009 at 11:19 PM (#3286221)
So, how's the trade 4 years later?
   42. Drexl Spivey Posted: August 08, 2009 at 11:36 PM (#3286233)
The next Hot Topics article: an evaluation of the Delino for Pedro trade.
   43. Tripon Posted: August 08, 2009 at 11:37 PM (#3286234)
Reason 100009338 why Tommy Lasorda should never be a GM.
   44. UCCF Posted: August 08, 2009 at 11:48 PM (#3286240)
That's just cruel. I saw this on the side bar and was hoping the Cubs had palmed off Milton Bradley on the A's.
   45. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: August 08, 2009 at 11:54 PM (#3286242)
Ditto
   46. Jeff K. Posted: August 09, 2009 at 01:50 AM (#3286281)
Hell, I even read the trade and thought "How on earth did Ethier pass through waivers?"
   47. RollingWave Posted: August 09, 2009 at 01:57 AM (#3286285)
+1 though it would kinda make sense for an AL team to take a salary dump on Milton
   48. SUBJ is growing his playoff beard Posted: August 09, 2009 at 04:54 AM (#3286369)
Milton Bradley is making WAY too much money for his production this year.
Milton Bradley takes WAY too many called third strikes.
Milton Bradley has WAY too many defensive/baserunning/general head-up-ass issues.

That being said, his OBP is .395 right now, and I think Lou has figured out a little something by putting him in the 2-hole.
   49. Jeff K. Posted: August 09, 2009 at 05:04 AM (#3286373)
Milton Bradley is making WAY too much money for his production this year.
Milton Bradley takes WAY too many called third strikes.
Milton Bradley has WAY too many defensive/baserunning/general head-up-ass issues.


The purpose of Milton Bradley is to flip out and kill people.
   50. It's a shame about Athletic Supporter Posted: August 11, 2009 at 09:43 PM (#3289395)

I still love this deal, mostly because I agree with Ivan that Ethier will not turn into a decent major-league starter. He had one good year. Not young. In the Texas League. With no track record previously. And it wasn't even that good.

I still hate the Loaiza deal.


Ugh. Well, one for two...
   51. Tripon Posted: August 27, 2009 at 06:59 AM (#3306451)
Andre Ethier career homers in the minors in 1228 ABs: 27 homers
Andre Ethier homers in 2009: 27 homers.
   52. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: August 27, 2009 at 07:06 AM (#3306453)
No one could have predicted that Ethier would respond so well to roids.
   53. Tripon Posted: December 04, 2009 at 07:26 AM (#3403115)


The purpose of Milton Bradley is to flip out and kill people.


Somehow Aaron Miles has more trade value over Milton Bradley.
   54. Freeballin' (Tales of Met Power) Posted: December 05, 2009 at 05:36 PM (#3404348)
Ooooh. This one hurts.
   55. Tripon Posted: May 07, 2010 at 06:02 AM (#3525318)
Andre Ethier is a supercilious man.
   56. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: May 07, 2010 at 06:22 AM (#3525322)
You're killing me with the old headline.

Again.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
1k5v3L
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.4545 seconds
42 querie(s) executed