Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

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. dave h Posted: December 24, 2009 at 04:48 PM (#3421616)
Isn't next year's free agent class much better? I think you have to consider that when making any more signings, especially since the Sox are likely to be a playoff team as presently constructed.

Also, tickets for the usual set of games are already on sale - is it likely that they will increase prices for the remaining games? Did any prices go up this year? I know that bleachers and upper bleachers didn't (that's pretty much all I'm in the market for). Last year the early games all sold out in the first day except scattered seats and SRO. This year I got an e-mail a couple weeks later saying some bleacher seats were available, and sure enough I could buy 8 seats together for some weekday games. Seems even in Red Sox country, this wouldn't be a good time to raise ticket prices.
   2. Nasty Nate Posted: December 24, 2009 at 05:00 PM (#3421633)
They raised some ticket prices for 2010. The real kicker is the per ticket and per transaction fees you have to pay to buy the tickets. Not to mention the premium for single-game tickets over what season ticket holders pay per ticket.

I think its unwise or worse to complain about the Sox supposedly not "spending" (Darren, I know you stop short of doing so). The Shaughnessy-driven ######## that happened pre-Lackey-Signging was especially idiotic given how early in the offseason it was. But even if they hadn't signed free agents to big deals this offseason, I wouldn't have complained. I literally cannot remember the last time they traded a player strictly to lower payroll and replaced him with a cheaper and inferior one. They have spent big money on free agents, international signings, draft picks, extending their core guys, and traded players' salaries. They have vastly improved Fenway park itself, and pumped out 95 win teams (of which the sox had ZERO in between 1986 and this ownership), so if they want to profit on the team and our willingness to overspend on tickets then I say have at it, boys!
   3. dave h Posted: December 24, 2009 at 05:07 PM (#3421640)
Yeah the fees are disgusting - I spent 8 hours+ on the computer last year trying to get tickets, and when I got through, they charged a "convenience fee". My fiance asked what exactly was convenient about this whole process (she was nice enough to be checking her computer the whole time also). That's not restricted to the Red Sox though. We pick up Orioles tickets at the stadium, and paying (really low) face value with no fees almost makes me giddy, until I realize we have to watch the Orioles. I think both of them are worth it though.

Also, season ticket holders get a discount? Or is it just the difference in fees? Most stadiums it seems that season ticket holders get nice seats and some extra perks but pay face value.
   4. PJ Martinez Posted: December 24, 2009 at 05:11 PM (#3421647)
I got a lot of problems with you people!

As for Red Sox management's willingness to spend, don't overlook their willingness to see a sunk cost for what it is, and pay some other team to play some lousy player (who then is good again, but whatareyougonnado?).
   5. Nasty Nate Posted: December 24, 2009 at 05:13 PM (#3421648)
Face value for season ticket holders at Fenway is a couple of bucks cheaper than face value sold to the public (eg I think last year RF GS were $28 for season ticket holders and $30 for the public). This makes sense for most teams and situations. But for the Sox, there is a huge waiting list to get season tickets, so you don't have to give a bulk discount to attract buyers. And a big proportion of season ticket holders buy the tickets solely to re-sell them at a profit, so the discount doesn't make much sense in this situation.
   6. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 24, 2009 at 05:14 PM (#3421650)
Also, season ticket holders get a discount? Or is it just the difference in fees? Most stadiums it seems that season ticket holders get nice seats and some extra perks but pay face value.
Generally, if you buy season tickets they are cheaper (not hugely, but meaningfully across 81 games) than individual tickets. On the other hand, that's arguably the least offensive ticketing practice teams do these days, since discounts for buying something in bulk is a pretty common thing across industries.
   7. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 24, 2009 at 05:17 PM (#3421651)
They have vastly improved Fenway park itself, and pumped out 95 win teams (of which the sox had ZERO in between 1986 and this ownership)


Technically true, but the 95 team was the equivalent of a 95+ win team in that abbreviated season.
   8. Darren Posted: December 24, 2009 at 05:19 PM (#3421652)

Also, tickets for the usual set of games are already on sale - is it likely that they will increase prices for the remaining games? I know that bleachers and upper bleachers didn't (that's pretty much all I'm in the market for).


Bleacher seats did go up to $28, and as you guys note, the fees are ridiculously high. I got an email the other day from the Red Sox saying that tickets were still available, which I don't recall being the case last year.

I think its unwise or worse to complain about the Sox supposedly not "spending" (Darren, I know you stop short of doing so). The Shaughnessy-driven ######## that happened pre-Lackey-Signging was especially idiotic given how early in the offseason it was. But even if they hadn't signed free agents to big deals this offseason, I wouldn't have complained.


Take Shaughnessy out of it, though, because he's likely to make anything sound horrible. They had dropped back in payroll recently and Theo was talking about how fans should be prepared for a bridge period. That didn't sound too good to people who already pay the highest ticket prices in baseball (or 2nd? now).

I literally cannot remember the last time they traded a player strictly to lower payroll and replaced him with a cheaper and inferior one.


True, I guess, but they have lost out on players strictly because of cost. And although they didn't trade them, they let Damon and Pedro walk and replaced them with some pretty inferior players.

They have spent big money on free agents, international signings, draft picks, extending their core guys, and traded players' salaries. They have vastly improved Fenway park itself, and pumped out 95 win teams (of which the sox had ZERO in between 1986 and this ownership), so if they want to profit on the team and our willingness to overspend on tickets then I say have at it, boys!


And if they keep doing these things, then good. But when they were talking about a bridge and the like, it didn't look so good. Also, that 95-win barrier is a bit arbitrary. They were a 95-win team in the shortened 1995 season and had multiple other playoff berths.
   9. ekogan Posted: December 24, 2009 at 05:30 PM (#3421671)
they only have about $79 million committed for the 2011 season (per Cot’s contracts)

That spreadsheet doesn't include payouts to pre free agency players, that's why that figure is so low and for this year it only lists a $135M payroll. Eyeballing it, this year arb. eligible and minimum wage players will get north of $20M and next year north of $25M. So the true payroll values are ~ $155M this year and $105M in 2011.

In 2010, the luxury tax limit if $170M, once you subtract the $10M charge for player benefits, you get $160M. That is close to the $155M the Red Sox are already on the hook for. I doubt that the Red Sox will lose money if they go above the luxury tax limit, as Darren said they are a money-making machine. However, it has been rumored that John Henry has a gentleman's agreement with Bud Selig not to violate that limit in order to make the Yankees the only free-spending bad guys. That was a significant reason for why the Sox were ready to bid an extravagant $51M for Dice-K's posting fee, the posting fee didn't count toward the luxury tax.

In 2011, the luxury tax limit will be $178. $178 - $10M player benefits - $105M prior commitments = $60-65 million dollars in which to sign a DH, a C, a 3B and a starting pitcher. Seems like just enough money, especially if the team intends to make a run at Mauer.
   10. dave h Posted: December 24, 2009 at 05:31 PM (#3421672)
I don't think we have to worry about the Sox maximizing profits, because cultivating a crazy fan base has turned out to be very profitable for them and I doubt they'll stop as long as it works. I'd like to think that if they don't add any more payroll this year, it's not (just) to make a few more dollars this year, but also to leave themselves flexibility for future years where their money can bring better players.
   11. Nasty Nate Posted: December 24, 2009 at 05:34 PM (#3421678)
And if they keep doing these things, then good. But when they were talking about a bridge and the like, it didn't look so good.


I just think they've built up a little bit of non-cheapskate credibility, so that one quote from Theo, as opposed to any salary-dumping action, should not cause any tizzy or moaning. Let's wait until they actually have a low payroll or actually put a bad team on the field before storming the castle with pitchforks and demanding refunds for our over-priced tickets.

Darren, i wasn't trying to lump you in with Shaughnessy. Thanks for all the work on Sox Therapy!
   12. Darren Posted: December 24, 2009 at 05:42 PM (#3421689)
I didn't think you were lumping, I just thought that his name tends to distract from the discussion a little.

They do have non-cheapskate cred, but I still understand the concerns that leaving money on the table prior to 09 plus their recent talk has been concerning.

Ekogan, according to a few different sources that have crunched the numbers, they're already over. I also think there's plenty of incentive for them to stay below, as going about means paying out an additional x percent for every bit of value you acquire.
   13. JB H Posted: December 24, 2009 at 07:57 PM (#3421815)
I really doubt the Red Sox have had any serious thoughts about signing Bay since the Lackey/Cameron moves. Beltre is the obvious move if they're going over the luxury tax. I saw somewhere that the asking price was down to 3/30. My fingers are crossed
   14. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: December 24, 2009 at 09:54 PM (#3421883)
Just for what it's worth on season tix there is an early payment discount. I could have paid full price by January 15th or get $5 discount per ticket by paying before December 16th.

Merry Christmas to everyone.
   15. Dan Posted: December 25, 2009 at 01:08 AM (#3421959)
It looks like the Bay rumors may have some truth to them:

Outfielder Jason Bay seems lukewarm on Mets, pushing to resign with Red Sox
   16. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 25, 2009 at 04:49 PM (#3422079)
It's Christmas, and Christmas is when we nitpick random sports journalists.
You have to think Urbon has offered to get creative financially in trying to make a deal, knowing the Sox do not want to go over the $170 million payroll luxury tax threshold.

Chances are that means significantly backloading any contract Bay signs so that he makes most of his money in, say, the final two years of a four-year deal.
Since the luxury tax is calculated on AAV, backloading the deal would have no effect whatsoever on the Red Sox luxury tax payroll. In regard to the larger point, I dunno. Bay still doesn't make much sense for the Red Sox, unless he's willing to take a much, much smaller contract. (I dunno, 2/20?) And that would be a massive "home"town discount. I do wonder whether the reported 4/60 was a real 4/60, or in the tradition of reported Red Sox offers, a "4/60" with non-guaranteed money and incentives and such.

I do think that the Red Sox have demonstrated very clearly this offseason that they intend to spend enough to compete with the Yankees (not be favorites, but compete) and to be significant favorites for the wild card. I'm happy about that.

On the question of what sorts of criticisms of ownership we can fairly level, I think that Nate makes a good case that even if this front office went cheap for a while, they would still have been the best ownership/management group of my lifetime. And that's pretty good, and any criticism should acknowledge that. But I believe that owning a baseball team involves not only entering into an economic relationship with customers, but also entering into a social relationship with the community of fans of that baseball team, which produces an additional set of responsibilities for ownership - among which is that they do not pocket unreasonable amounts of profit that could be reasonably used to improve the club. So I still hold out, based on this relationship and the responsibilities it entails, for my ability to criticize the club if they're not spending what I think they can, and thus ought.

But I think, on this subject, that they've earned the benefit of the doubt.

And to echo Darren, since it's Christmas, and Christmas is when we say nice things to each other on the internet, thanks to the whole ST community, and to the BTF community including Yankee fans. Y'all's good people.
   17. OCD SS Posted: December 25, 2009 at 10:12 PM (#3422168)
True, I guess, but they have lost out on players strictly because of cost. And although they didn't trade them, they let Damon and Pedro walk and replaced them with some pretty inferior players.


I don't think you can characterize either as a bad move:

Damon was not expected to stay in CF for the duration of his contract, and it's not like his offensive profile made him a good bet to push Manny or Ortiz out of the lineup. As bad as Clement and Wells came out, Pedro was toast in the AL and barely warranted 2 years, let alone 3 (and of course Radke turned down a 3 year deal to stay with the Twins, which IIRC wouldn't have worked out either).

In both cases the Sox made an effort to get younger players who projected better for the future, instead of sticking with guys who were going to ask for superstar commitments based on past accomplishments.

For 2010, I don't see the point in re-signing Bay. I could see spending for Holliday if he'll turn into a bargain, but the only other budget busting option that's appealing is Miggy, and he doesn't look to be available.
   18. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 26, 2009 at 09:45 PM (#3422424)
In both cases the Sox made an effort to get younger players who projected better for the future, instead of sticking with guys who were going to ask for superstar commitments based on past accomplishments.
I think this is overstating things a bit. 4/54 and 5/55 aren't "superstar" commitments. Those are reasonable salaries very close to what the Sox offered (3/42 and 4/40, iirc). The Sox didn't think the contract demands of either Pedro or Damon were radically out of line with what they deserved, rather, the Sox agreed with the AAV Damon and Pedro wanted, and with the basic outline of the deal in terms of length, but that one extra year was too much.

And while it certainly is the case that some people and some systems projected Clement/Wells and Crisp to be better than Pedro and Damon, not everyone, not all systems did, and the actual events which followed don't make the Red Sox look all that good. Damon was better than Crisp by a very wide margin, and I don't think it can be fairly argued that the Sox made the right call there, in hindsight. I'd like to see that argument.

I assume most people agree about Crisp vs. Damon in hindsight. While I wouldn't state my case in terms of Pedro and Clement/Wells quite as starkly, I would again argue that the Red Sox did not get as much value from their acquisitions as they would have from the player they let go. These are the IP, ERA+, VORP, and cost for the three pitchers. 2005, 2006, 2007, then 2008.

217, 145, 65, $11M - Pedro
375, 100, 49, $15.5M - Clement/Wells

133, 97, 15, $15M - Pedro
112, 82, -3, $13M - Clement/Wells

28, 162, 7, $14M - Pedro
0, 0, 0, $9.5M - Clement/Wells

109, 75, -2, $11M - Pedro
0. 0. 0, $0M - Clement/Wells

The only year the Sox come out better by any significant amount from this is 2008, and I don't think the savings of $11M in that season outweigh the losses early in the contract. One could perhaps argue that the wasted $11M in 2008 could have cost the Red Sox the pennant, but I would respond that the likely 2-3 win upgrade in 2005 would have won us that pennant outright while giving the Red Sox a chance to go on further. The 2007 WS is not impacted at all.

Darren's original point was about the Sox choosing not to spend money, and perhaps this debate is tangential to that. The Sox didn't spend much less money on Clement/Wells.
   19. OCD SS Posted: December 26, 2009 at 10:06 PM (#3422437)
I agree that it's a tangential argument, but I think it's interesting in that it show's the FO willing to spend in talent to acquire younger players (but maybe you need to buy into my premise in the first place)...

While Pedro proved to be better than Clement/ Wells, I think that really only works as hindsight; Pedro's contract turned out pretty badly, with only the first year being worth anything. I really looks like it breaks down on the player's health. Clement's shoulder and Wells taking a line drive off of his knee were not necessarily things that you could have projected for, but if you had set a baseline for Clement's performance at the end of his deal at VORPs of 15 or 7, I would've taken that bet at the time (and I suspect the FO would've as well).
   20. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 27, 2009 at 01:24 AM (#3422533)
While Pedro proved to be better than Clement/ Wells, I think that really only works as hindsight
I argued, at the time, that I'd rather have Pedro than Clement/Wells. The projection numbers didn't make a definitive determination. If you want to make the claim based on Pedro's frayed shoulder, you have to account for the Red Sox offering 3/40 - they couldn't have been all that convinced that he was kaput.

I should add that the lesson of the above numbers is also that neither Pedro nor Clement/Wells were good investments.
   21. villageidiom Posted: December 28, 2009 at 03:54 PM (#3423190)
The only year the Sox come out better by any significant amount from this is 2008, and I don't think the savings of $11M in that season outweigh the losses early in the contract.
Don't forget 2009. In return for not signing Pedro, they got Buchholz. The team is still getting value from the 2004 offseason. (Likewise, they got Bard when they lost Damon.)

I recognize that drafting decisions several months after the offseason are a completely different set of decisions. It's hard to separate the value of the drafting decisions from the value of the drafting opportunity, and I recognize the value from the opportunity is not necessarily as simple as I'm making it sound. But if we're evaluating from hindsight, it is that simple.

If you want to make the claim based on Pedro's frayed shoulder, you have to account for the Red Sox offering 3/40 - they couldn't have been all that convinced that he was kaput
IIRC at the time teams could only get insurance for player injuries on contracts of 3 years or less. They didn't have to be convinced he was healthy for the first three years, but they had to be convinced beyond that because they would've fully owned that risk.
   22. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: December 28, 2009 at 06:11 PM (#3423268)
As I remember Theo wasn't willing to go beyond two years on Pedro, and it was Lucchino who extended the offer to three.
   23. Textbook Editor Posted: December 30, 2009 at 03:00 AM (#3424366)
Well, so much for Bay... But we may be in on Beltre! Of course Edes is the source so...

But still, Beltre + Scutaro + Cameron would be a huge upgrade defensively over what they had the majority of last year at those 3 positions. It'd be worth the 1-year cap hit to pull that off (presuming you went back under the cap for 2011).
   24. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: December 30, 2009 at 09:26 PM (#3424972)
Unless they can dump money somewhere else, I don't think the marginal upgrade from Kotchman to Beltre is worth Beltre's salary plus 22%, not to mention 22% again on whoever they acquire in-season. Signing Beltre would also cut into the ABs Martinez can get at first.
   25. Dan Posted: December 30, 2009 at 09:36 PM (#3424982)
Signing Beltre would also cut into the ABs Martinez can get at first.

I don't really see this as an issue if we assume that the majority of Varitek's PT will come against LHP. Martinez can DH and Ortiz can sit when Tek is playing vs. LH starters.
   26. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: December 31, 2009 at 12:40 AM (#3425112)
That works, but you run the risk of Varitek getting dinged and coming out of the game, Martinez moving to catcher, and losing the DH.
   27. PJ Martinez Posted: January 05, 2010 at 03:05 AM (#3427765)
Couldn't find a thread for this: Sox sign Beltre. Gammons apparently saying its 9m for the first year, second year player option for 5m?

I like it.

Edit: Crasnick has the same (also notes: 1m buyout) -- http://twitter.com/jcrasnick/status/7385707559
   28. Fourth True Outcome Posted: January 05, 2010 at 03:10 AM (#3427771)
I really like it, but it has to mean there was basically no market for Beltre, huh? I was assuming it would take at least three years at around that AAV to sign him. Do you think he and his agent think they'll have better luck next offseason?
   29. Nasty Nate Posted: January 05, 2010 at 03:14 AM (#3427774)
another sign that these cheapskates are punting 'ten...
   30. PJ Martinez Posted: January 05, 2010 at 03:20 AM (#3427778)
Yeah, they must like their chances next year. Maybe Beltre's convinced his offensive numbers will look better after a year in Fenway. Or he's read the tea leaves on the economy and sees further improvement.
   31. villageidiom Posted: January 05, 2010 at 03:21 AM (#3427780)
Globe (Pete Abe) reports confirm #27 above, but also with a $1 million buyout in 2011. So, really, $10m for 1 year, or $14m for two... assuming the report is correct, which I'm not sure. If it's a player option, why is there a buyout? If he doesn't exercise the option, isn't he already a free agent without the buyout?

I suppose this is what they meant about getting creative with contracts. If I'm reading it correctly, AAV = $7 million ($14 million for 2 years), though it's likely real AAV will be $10 million (1 year at $9 million + $1 million buyout).
   32. PJ Martinez Posted: January 05, 2010 at 03:23 AM (#3427781)
I read on SoSH that AAV for tax purposes is 9m, because that's the only part that's guaranteed? Don't know if that's right.

You're right, though: a buyout on a player option seems unusual.
   33. Textbook Editor Posted: January 05, 2010 at 03:28 AM (#3427782)
I don't get the Lowell for Castillo trade that's being bandied about at all... Unless the idea is to save $3 million by releasing Castillo once the trade is finalized.

I love, love, love this deal, but if Beltre and Lowell are both gone for 2011, then is the plan to move Youkilis back for 2011? Or Lowrie as a 3B if health is regained? Or is there a FA out there?

I'm also presuming this means that the A-Gon stuff will quiet down now...
   34. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 05, 2010 at 03:29 AM (#3427783)
That's a great contract for Beltre - he's a +10 fielder no matter what. That's basically the offseason, and I really like this club.

check that defense.

1B- good
2B- gold glove
SS- average/good
3B- gold glove
LF- gold glove
CF- average
RF- good

Catcher's gonna suck, probably, but on balls in play, this is going to be a very impressive club.
   35. APNY Posted: January 05, 2010 at 03:33 AM (#3427788)
I'm pretty sure player options count as guaranteed for luxury tax purposes.

Seems like a pretty big luxury tax loophole. Good for the Sox for taking advantage. Yankees should have added player options for the minimum to the end of all their big contracts.
   36. Textbook Editor Posted: January 05, 2010 at 03:46 AM (#3427795)
Ah, didn't realize Castillo was owed $6 mil in 2010 and 2011... Which makes the $ a wash, but we get Luis Castillo for 2 years instead of Lowell for 1... Now I don't think the trade makes sense for the Red Sox, unless they're going to repackage Castillo and a prospect somewhere to get salary relief on the Castillo deal...
   37. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: January 05, 2010 at 03:48 AM (#3427797)
I am going to love watching what may be the best defense in the game.
   38. BarrettsHiddenBall Posted: January 05, 2010 at 03:49 AM (#3427798)
another sign that these cheapskates are punting 'ten...

What Theo neglected to mention is that it's a ####### huge bridge
   39. Nasty Nate Posted: January 05, 2010 at 03:53 AM (#3427801)
haha, nice!
   40. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 05, 2010 at 04:19 AM (#3427833)
So, Red Sox 3B and LF were maybe 20-30 runs below average last year. We can reasonably expect them to be 15 runs above average next year. That's a four-win upgrade on defense.
   41. Textbook Editor Posted: January 05, 2010 at 04:27 AM (#3427843)
#40--Matt, I agree, and when you factor in 6 months of VMart at C instead of 2 months + 4 months of Varitek sucking, overall the offensive output at 3B/LF/C might be just about even with the output in 2009.
   42. villageidiom Posted: January 05, 2010 at 04:29 AM (#3427846)
1B- good
2B- gold glove
SS- average/good
3B- gold glove
LF- gold glove
CF- average
RF- good
And that's if Cameron is in LF and Ellsbury in CF. Switch that, and it could be argued that GG/Average changes to AboveAvg/GG.
   43. John DiFool2 Posted: January 05, 2010 at 05:10 AM (#3427872)
And if they awarded GG's for L/C/R exclusively, Drew would have won in right.
   44. Darren Posted: January 05, 2010 at 05:36 AM (#3427892)
Ah, didn't realize Castillo was owed $6 mil in 2010 and 2011... Which makes the $ a wash, but we get Luis Castillo for 2 years instead of Lowell for 1... Now I don't think the trade makes sense for the Red Sox, unless they're going to repackage Castillo and a prospect somewhere to get salary relief on the Castillo deal...


It does drop $6 mil from the 2010 AAV payroll.
   45. Textbook Editor Posted: January 05, 2010 at 05:40 AM (#3427896)
#44--Darren, I had not thought of that. That's a good reason to do the deal.

Do all of the 2010 budget #'s being thrown about include Lugo's eaten contract? I can't figure out if the AAV for Lugo counts against the Red Sox budget or not.
   46. Darren Posted: January 05, 2010 at 05:41 AM (#3427900)
Yes, Lugo's contract is counted in those calculations, as it should be. It's meant to avoid rich teams getting under the cap by paying players to play elsewhere when they cease being worthwhile.

What do the Mets get out of a Castillo/Lowell deal?
   47. Textbook Editor Posted: January 05, 2010 at 06:20 AM (#3427939)
Darren--presumably a 1B guy (if I'm reading this right from the NYM's perspective) for basically what they were set to pay Castillo for 2 years + a free roster spot for 2011 that otherwise would be sunk for Castillo?

Other than that, I got nothing. For very, very little cost (probably $1 million or less + a C prospect would do it) any AL team save the NYY could use Lowell as a RH platoon DH/fill-in 3B; I can't imagine there'd be zero takers on this.

But it amusing to think the Red Sox will be paying something like $21.5 million to 2 guys (Lowell/Lugo) not even on the roster. The upside (I guess) is that we won't in 2011 and some of that $ can be used to re-sign Beltre (if this is desired) or go out and trade for a 3B who's a year or two out from FA and then sign him to an extension.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Rough Carrigan
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.4649 seconds
41 querie(s) executed