SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Predicting The 2025 Opening Day Roster
|
|
Post by dmdmd on Sept 27, 2024 1:03:05 GMT -5
The following article might be worth pondering for the posters that have such high expectations for the Red Sox Big5. I am certainly not routing against any of them, but history does not support across the board success (especially not the first year) for prospects. In fact, history would suggest that only 2-3 of the 5 will be considered successful. Pruning the entire major league team to clear a spot for an unproven prospect, regardless of how good they might eventually be seems like a mistake. I think they need to come up with reasonable expectations, bat 7th or 8th in the lineup and and grow into their role whatever that might be. www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects#:~:text=About%2070%25%20of%20Baseball%20America,20%20succeed%20in%20the%20majors. Sorry for duplicating my post, but I agree with greenmonster’s comments. Injury or regression will help Sox sort through their prospects to fit the roster. We did not see Grissom’s lost year coming, but these things happen and will happen to other young prospects. The Reds young infield was supposed to be too crowded this year AND they still signed Candelario, and they were running out Amad Rosario, who was on his third team or so of the season, by September. The Sox current prospect status is similar to where the Orioles were a couple of years ago when they seemingly had too many prospects to fit the roster. They waited, developed, and then pounced on Burnes last year. The Sox will likely do the same when the opportunity presents. That said, teams hoard controllable young pitching (Mariners have not traded their pitching despite 2 years of pretty bad offense). You either have to develop your own good pitching or identify guys on other teams in the low minors who are not studs, but who may have some not-overt-potential to surprise and make a big developmental leap. You will never get someone like Skubal via trade at this point in his career. Crochet couldn’t even be moved from a historically bad team. To get a good relatively young pitcher near peak, you are going to have to pay for it in free agency, or snag a pitcher close to free agency from a small market team who can’t afford to keep him (like Burnes last year). So, if the Sox are going to significantly upgrade their pitching now, they will probably have to pay for Burnes or Fried (I might look at Fried, as I think Burnes will cost a ton). Sox need a reliable bullpen arm. Devin Williams has one year left w Brewers, I believe, around $10M. The Brewers won’t be able to pay him closer-money in free agency, so perhaps he would be available. Maybe that’s where you move someone like Abreu. If you can’t get someone like Williams, then free agency is again the way to go for someone like Tanner Scott. Free agent Right-handed hitters who are upgrades on TON and who aren’t DHs or 1B are very scarce. Would have loved Adames last year, but he will be suiting up for the Dodgers soon. I lthink this leaves Bregman, who on the surface may not look like a fit, but who could be interesting. Athletic enough to play anywhere in the IF, including second, (and good insurance for Devers and Story) and who could be RH DH some days, and even probably be a left fielder if Abreu is moved. I could see him wearing out the Monster. Also seems like the type who could handle the pressure of Boston, which is important for any big free agent coming to town. I doubt Sox make this move,and am not sure it’s the best use of resources, but wouldn’t be totally shocked either. |
|
|
|
Post by Darwin's Curve on Sept 27, 2024 6:14:40 GMT -5
The following article might be worth pondering for the posters that have such high expectations for the Red Sox Big5. I am certainly not routing against any of them, but history does not support across the board success (especially not the first year) for prospects. In fact, history would suggest that only 2-3 of the 5 will be considered successful. Pruning the entire major league team to clear a spot for an unproven prospect, regardless of how good they might eventually be seems like a mistake. I think they need to come up with reasonable expectations, bat 7th or 8th in the lineup and and grow into their role whatever that might be. www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects#:~:text=About%2070%25%20of%20Baseball%20America,20%20succeed%20in%20the%20majors. Fortunately the Sox don't *need* across-the-board success here. First off, they can trade some of them (or active players) for a more established player as a return. (Likely for pitching.) Secondly, there aren't many holes to plug. Contact hitters, RHH, SP, RP. That can be done through FA or trade. Thirdly, I'm not sure who is advocating "Pruning the entire major league team to clear a spot for an unproven prospect." At most, I think people are talking about options like not resigning a FA like O'Neill to a 3 year deal because we have 2 OF prospects in Anthony and Campbell. *Both* of whom could flame out which would still leave us with 3 starting OFs. But either one could also win the ROY. (With '27 depth in Bleis/Montgomery.) And those are a pair of dice you roll, 100% of the time. Those who are talking about trading one of the three OF are usually doing that in the scenario of acquiring a cost-controlled SP. And with Anthony and Campbell, that's more of a lateraling resources argument that depends on the details of the trade and in-house details we're not privy to (like existing player's medicals). Duran for a #5 would be insane. Abreu for a #2 seems like something to consider, especially if the Sox are privately worried about Houck's shoulder. So too with the IF. Many names, much talent, few ML roster spots. The one position we really want to have some credible emergency depth at is catcher. (Assuming they think Teel is ready, which they may not.) I wouldn't trade Wong hoping Teel is ready, and I'm not sure anyone credibly argue that should happen, since Teel might struggle or flame out. I don't think we have any pitching prospects we're planning around - *anything* we get out of the farm arms is great. But I don't think anyone is saying we need to clear guys like Houck and Bello or perhaps not resign Pivetta or sign a FA because Fitts is on the way up. If anyone is doing that, we should probably get them to do a self-diagnostic to see if they're suffering from a massive head injury. |
|
|
|
Post by trotnixon7 on Sept 27, 2024 6:41:07 GMT -5
So now you're plan is hoping not only this wave of talent REALLY hits but now the goal is to wait until cespedes/arias/montgomery etc? The fact you're OK with boston using such a conservative approach is insane to me. This isn't for me to say I want to operate like dombrowski but at the same time, act and operate like a team that's worth what they are. Did I say we should be waiting for Montgomery and doing nothing in the meantime? (Reads post again.) Hey, guess what? I didn't say that. I guess I'm not sure what you mean than. Because if the goal is to be Baltimore 2.0, it's a team that will largely be farm/minimal aggressiveness outside of the burnes trade and you pointed to supplementing this wave..with the next. We'll be waiting a while.. I'm all for valuing player development but..the fact some fans have this illusion boston can't compete financially with pretty much any team outside of maybe nyy/dodgers is crazy to me. |
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 6,651 
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Sept 27, 2024 7:15:59 GMT -5
Did I say we should be waiting for Montgomery and doing nothing in the meantime? (Reads post again.) Hey, guess what? I didn't say that. I guess I'm not sure what you mean than. Because if the goal is to be Baltimore 2.0, it's a team that will largely be farm/minimal aggressiveness outside of the burnes trade and you pointed to supplementing this wave..with the next. We'll be waiting a while.. I'm all for valuing player development but..the fact some fans have this illusion boston can't compete financially with pretty much any team outside of maybe nyy/dodgers is crazy to me. Yes Baltimore built for a very long time but the Sox are already seemingly at least half way to a solid young mostly home grown core right now with 2 or 3 uber prospects (Anthony,Campbell,Mayer) and a 4th top 30(Teel) that are all in AAA. I'm guessing that's just what they meant. Also by this wave not trying to put words in their mouth but my guess is they meant the current guys in the majors that have come up recently (Houck, Bello, Crawford, Duran, Casas, Rafaela, Abreu Etc.) with the next wave the big 4 that I spoke of plus others. |
|
|
|
Post by trotnixon7 on Sept 27, 2024 7:40:21 GMT -5
I guess I'm not sure what you mean than. Because if the goal is to be Baltimore 2.0, it's a team that will largely be farm/minimal aggressiveness outside of the burnes trade and you pointed to supplementing this wave..with the next. We'll be waiting a while.. I'm all for valuing player development but..the fact some fans have this illusion boston can't compete financially with pretty much any team outside of maybe nyy/dodgers is crazy to me. Yes Baltimore built for a very long time but the Sox are already seemingly at least half way to a solid young mostly home grown core right now with 2 or 3 uber prospects (Anthony,Campbell,Mayer) and a 4th top 30(Teel) that are all in AAA. I'm guessing that's just what they meant. Also by this wave not trying to put words in their mouth but my guess is they meant the current guys in the majors that have come up recently (Houck, Bello, Crawford, Duran, Casas, Rafaela, Abreu Etc.) with the next wave the big 4 that I spoke of plus others. I guess I must have read it wrong. BUT..I think this is more reason to go aggressive. Take advantage of the fact a lot of the roster isn't making much. Now I'm not saying go the DD route but I just don't see why the cbt for ex is all of a sudden something they can't go over. It's insane to me. Day 1 of FA, they should be offering soto 520M. If that's not enough? So be it..but a team like the Red Sox in the position they are in should 10000% be in the mix for these elite-elite/generational type FAs. Just feels like a mid market mindset these days which is unacceptable as far as I'm concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 27, 2024 8:17:42 GMT -5
The greatest trick the devil ever played was letting owners convince fans that the only way to improve a baseball team was to suck for an extended period so that they could cut back on the money they put into the team in order to maximize profits.
|
|
|
|
Post by cheers on Sept 27, 2024 8:22:33 GMT -5
The greatest trick the devil ever played was letting owners convince fans that the only way to improve a baseball team was to suck for an extended period so that they could cut back on the money they put into the team in order to maximize profits. I'd like to think that this isn't what is occurring, but there is certainly enough evidence lying around to believe that it is a possibility... |
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Sept 27, 2024 8:49:43 GMT -5
The greatest trick the devil ever played was letting owners convince fans that the only way to improve a baseball team was to suck for an extended period so that they could cut back on the money they put into the team in order to maximize profits. I'd like to think that this isn't what is occurring, but there is certainly enough evidence lying around to believe that it is a possibility... I feel like the Red Sox explicitly did not take this approach |
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Sept 27, 2024 8:57:57 GMT -5
I'd like to think that this isn't what is occurring, but there is certainly enough evidence lying around to believe that it is a possibility... I feel like the Red Sox explicitly did not take this approach And even the teams that did - like the Orioles; didn't they have good reason? I mean, the tanking occurred almost assuredly as a direct result of the absolute failure of the Chris Davis contract. You have an owner who has historically never spent money on free agents who spent big on a guy and had it immediately blow up in his face. I guess I'm just tired of this idea that everything owner's do is a direct result of their own greed and moral failing as opposed to a response to something that didn't work and doing something else. EDIT: I hate defending Peter Angelos, because he was an awful owner. |
|
|
|
Post by trotnixon7 on Sept 27, 2024 9:03:10 GMT -5
The greatest trick the devil ever played was letting owners convince fans that the only way to improve a baseball team was to suck for an extended period so that they could cut back on the money they put into the team in order to maximize profits. What's crazy is the flip of the switch. Henry was always a very unlikeable person but..always seemed to care about winning/public perception in terms of the Red Sox..he was also reactionary some. Ever since 19? He hasn't seemed to care 1 bit. It's insane. |
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Sept 27, 2024 9:05:58 GMT -5
The most important thing the Sox can do in the off season is to get a solid bullpen. Too many of our quality starts were wasted by the awful bullpen. Quality AAA guys will solidify the lineup. But, without a good bullpen, they're not going anywhere. I think Breslow knows that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 27, 2024 9:22:35 GMT -5
I was speaking generally to the persistent idea of sports fans in the present day that teams absolutely need to suck for several years as part of some kind of cyclical inevitability in order to get better draft picks to get better in the future. It's perhaps one way to go but it isn't the only way. It's just the favored approach of ownership because they make more money that way.
I agree that this isn't what the Red Sox have done. Henry just cut the budget. That is what it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by trotnixon7 on Sept 27, 2024 10:14:38 GMT -5
I was speaking generally to the persistent idea of sports fans in the present day that teams absolutely need to suck for several years as part of some kind of cyclical inevitability in order to get better draft picks to get better in the future. It's perhaps one way to go but it isn't the only way. It's just the favored approach of ownership because they make more money that way. I agree that this isn't what the Red Sox have done. Henry just cut the budget. That is what it is. I guess I just wish their was more of an uproar..bit more pressure on henry etc. Just sucks to see him generating this much revenue, feeling minimal pressure and seemingly skating by. Not that I haven't enjoyed the winning but 1 drawback it seems like is the fact it's gotten the fan base kinda soft in some way. |
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,172
|
Post by jimoh on Sept 27, 2024 10:17:32 GMT -5
The most important thing the Sox can do in the off season is to get a solid bullpen. Too many of our quality starts were wasted by the awful bullpen. Quality AAA guys will solidify the lineup. But, without a good bullpen, they're not going anywhere. I think Breslow knows that. a bullpen, and some good young arms in Worcester to back up both the bullpen and the rotation. |
|
badfishnbc
Veteran
Doing you all a favor and leaving through the gate in right field since 2012.
Posts: 492
|
Post by badfishnbc on Sept 27, 2024 10:31:07 GMT -5
Team WAR leaders: Wade Boggs 8.8 Rich Gedman 5.6 Oil Can Boyd 5.6 Dwight Evans 4.0 Bruce Hurst 3.3 Bob Ojeda 3.1 Team wRC+ of 110 and ERA of 4.12. They were 5th in the majors in positional WAR and 5th in pitching as well. Their run differential was +80. What the hell happened there?
hmm, one thing = 29 saves (no one had more than 12), 20 blown saves. where can you look up how many one-run losses they had? Yeah, 1985 was my learning tree year for the Red Sox and I distinctly remember sitting with my grandfather as he read the Herald and groused about Bob Stanley and the bullpen. |
|
|
|
Post by trajanacc on Sept 27, 2024 11:06:16 GMT -5
The greatest trick the devil ever played was letting owners convince fans that the only way to improve a baseball team was to suck for an extended period so that they could cut back on the money they put into the team in order to maximize profits. What's crazy is the flip of the switch. Henry was always a very unlikeable person but..always seemed to care about winning/public perception in terms of the Red Sox..he was also reactionary some. Ever since 19? He hasn't seemed to care 1 bit. It's insane. You must know John Henry pretty well to make such sweeping comments about his personality and motivations with regard to the Red Sox. |
|
|
|
Post by abrinker on Sept 27, 2024 11:34:00 GMT -5
The most important thing the Sox can do in the off season is to get a solid bullpen. Too many of our quality starts were wasted by the awful bullpen. Quality AAA guys will solidify the lineup. But, without a good bullpen, they're not going anywhere. I think Breslow knows that. a bullpen, and some good young arms in Worcester to back up both the bullpen and the rotation. And a strong defensive catcher who could help the entire staff. Wong just isn't that, and Teel isn't that yet either. Bring in a good receiver, who can frame, block and control basepaths (even at the sacrifice of some offense), and have him there to continue to mentor Teel until he can slide into that spot. I truly believe Teel has a ways to go yet. Offensively, he's fine; but in terms of defense, he'd be a liability (though probably not as bad as Wong). He needs time and tutelage. Of all positions on the field, catcher is the most important, and poor defense there has a cascading effect on the entire team. I'd love it if there was way to estimate how the staff's performance would have benefited from having someone like Raleigh or Bailey behind the dish, instead of Wong. The aggregate change in value across the entire rotation (fewer runs/baserunners, more innings pitched) and bullpen (less gassed because starters would have been able to go longer, fewer runs/baserunners when they were on the mound) would surely be much higher than current measures of value, like WAR. It's such a force multiplier, and I don't think current measures appropriately capture that enabled value. |
|
|
|
Post by Darwin's Curve on Sept 27, 2024 12:04:59 GMT -5
I was speaking generally to the persistent idea of sports fans in the present day that teams absolutely need to suck for several years as part of some kind of cyclical inevitability in order to get better draft picks to get better in the future. It's perhaps one way to go but it isn't the only way. It's just the favored approach of ownership because they make more money that way. I agree that this isn't what the Red Sox have done. Henry just cut the budget. That is what it is. There are different ways to analyze what the Sox did, and some strategies are not mutually exclusive. But one aspect of the decision not to sign older FAs was that they created opportunities for younger players to develop. For example, Houck, Bello, and Crawford all pushed past their previous innings limits and are poised to be a good core of a future rotation. Compare that to a world where we didn't "cut the budget" and signed Montgomery. We'd have the same or worse record, but we'd be wondering right now who we'd have to package Montgomery with to unload him on another team. We'd also be wondering (as we were 360 days ago) whether Houck/Crawford could effectively pitch to opposing lineups a third time, and could be stretched out to be a season-long starter. |
|
|
|
Post by bettsonmookie on Sept 27, 2024 12:27:10 GMT -5
I was speaking generally to the persistent idea of sports fans in the present day that teams absolutely need to suck for several years as part of some kind of cyclical inevitability in order to get better draft picks to get better in the future. It's perhaps one way to go but it isn't the only way. It's just the favored approach of ownership because they make more money that way. I agree that this isn't what the Red Sox have done. Henry just cut the budget. That is what it is. There are different ways to analyze what the Sox did, and some strategies are not mutually exclusive. But one aspect of the decision not to sign older FAs was that they created opportunities for younger players to develop. For example, Houck, Bello, and Crawford all pushed past their previous innings limits and are poised to be a good core of a future rotation. Compare that to a world where we didn't "cut the budget" and signed Montgomery. We'd have the same or worse record, but we'd be wondering right now who we'd have to package Montgomery with to unload him on another team. We'd also be wondering (as we were 360 days ago) whether Houck/Crawford could effectively pitch to opposing lineups a third time, and could be stretched out to be a season-long starter. There is something to be said for this. The majority of fans and reporters alike were proclaiming in no uncertain terms that Jordan Montgomery would make the Red Sox much better, and that their lack of aggressiveness was an indicator of ownership being cheap. Fast forward, and he is the worst pitcher in baseball, and the Sox are far better off not having him on their roster. I believe the Grissom-Sale swap is more indicative than anything else on how the FO felt about the group contending in the short-term. However, even that trade, which clearly prioritizes the future over the present, included a significant chunk of cash going to ATL. If it were as simple as the organization being cheap, wouldn’t they offload Sale’s contract and take less talent back in exchange for the financial relief? To me, it looks more like they are abiding by a strategy that resists aggressive investment until the club is ready to “push in chips”, and last offseason, they felt they were not there yet. |
|
|
|
Post by bmoneyproblemz on Sept 27, 2024 12:44:37 GMT -5
I was speaking generally to the persistent idea of sports fans in the present day that teams absolutely need to suck for several years as part of some kind of cyclical inevitability in order to get better draft picks to get better in the future. It's perhaps one way to go but it isn't the only way. It's just the favored approach of ownership because they make more money that way. I agree that this isn't what the Red Sox have done. Henry just cut the budget. That is what it is. There are different ways to analyze what the Sox did, and some strategies are not mutually exclusive. But one aspect of the decision not to sign older FAs was that they created opportunities for younger players to develop. For example, Houck, Bello, and Crawford all pushed past their previous innings limits and are poised to be a good core of a future rotation. Compare that to a world where we didn't "cut the budget" and signed Montgomery. We'd have the same or worse record, but we'd be wondering right now who we'd have to package Montgomery with to unload him on another team. We'd also be wondering (as we were 360 days ago) whether Houck/Crawford could effectively pitch to opposing lineups a third time, and could be stretched out to be a season-long starter. This is one hell of a stretch, Batman. First you have to say that Montgomery would have had the exact same season as he did in Arizona if we signed him. What if we signed him in December and he had a full spring? What if he picthed 150 innings for us instead of 120? What if he had an average year and had a 4 ERA istead of a 6 ERA? What if he made 30 starts for us instead of 21 for Arizona? So all of these factors could have lead him to be his average 2.3 WAR. Now, is 25 million worth that? Probably not no, but the stretch of he would have been just as bad for us when he would have been a good addition to a team that needed an extra starter makes my head spin. |
|
|
|
Post by keninten on Sept 27, 2024 12:48:12 GMT -5
There are different ways to analyze what the Sox did, and some strategies are not mutually exclusive. But one aspect of the decision not to sign older FAs was that they created opportunities for younger players to develop. For example, Houck, Bello, and Crawford all pushed past their previous innings limits and are poised to be a good core of a future rotation. Compare that to a world where we didn't "cut the budget" and signed Montgomery. We'd have the same or worse record, but we'd be wondering right now who we'd have to package Montgomery with to unload him on another team. We'd also be wondering (as we were 360 days ago) whether Houck/Crawford could effectively pitch to opposing lineups a third time, and could be stretched out to be a season-long starter. This is one hell of a stretch, Batman. First you have to say that Montgomery would have had the exact same season as he did in Arizona if we signed him. What if we signed him in December and he had a full spring? What if he picthed 150 innings for us instead of 120? What if he had an average year and had a 4 ERA istead of a 6 ERA? What if he made 30 starts for us instead of 21 for Arizona? So all of these factors could have lead him to be his average 2.3 WAR. Now, is 25 million worth that? Probably not no, but the stretch of he would have been just as bad for us when he would have been a good addition to a team that needed an extra starter makes my head spin. And he could have been worse. |
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Sept 27, 2024 13:34:37 GMT -5
There is something to be said for this. The majority of fans and reporters alike were proclaiming in no uncertain terms that Jordan Montgomery would make the Red Sox much better, and that their lack of aggressiveness was an indicator of ownership being cheap. Fast forward, and he is the worst pitcher in baseball, and the Sox are far better off not having him on their roster. I believe the Grissom-Sale swap is more indicative than anything else on how the FO felt about the group contending in the short-term. However, even that trade, which clearly prioritizes the future over the present, included a significant chunk of cash going to ATL. If it were as simple as the organization being cheap, wouldn’t they offload Sale’s contract and take less talent back in exchange for the financial relief? To me, it looks more like they are abiding by a strategy that resists aggressive investment until the club is ready to “push in chips”, and last offseason, they felt they were not there yet. This. For 2024 they decided (incorrectly, I would say) how competitive the team would be, and decided to prioritize 2025 and beyond instead - and hopefully that pays off next year, although its definitely frustrating for myself and others who believed they were already on the cusp of being competitive in 2024 and just needed an extra push. As far as the whole being cheap thing: There's a difference between "cheap" and "cheap er", and ownership may be less willing to spend than they were, but calling them outright cheap is a stretch, in comparison to other owners, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Sept 27, 2024 13:39:08 GMT -5
Henry just wants to make money, period. Staying under the luxury tax is only part of it. Raising ticket prices is another. Getting rid of high priced talent is part of the program. It seems that fans will always pay whatever to see the team. The Sox are an important part of the city and he takes advantage of that. So, win or lose, he makes money. Winning or losing is a low priory for him. Send in your cash and take whatever happens. Tough. I'm sure he loves the kids because they don't cost much. Veterans are expensive and bidding for them even worse.
So, don't expect much in the way of buying super-stars. Just rely on their minor league developmental players to hold the costs down. Henry is a bottom line guy and winning has very little to do with that.
We are all suckers and he's happy with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Sept 27, 2024 14:15:56 GMT -5
Apologies for the rambling post, but I got sucked into looking at the standings on ESPN and then BREF which include runs/runs allowed/run differential and I realized its been a long time since I thought about the team's performance purely in terms of runs - I mean, I know that's moneyball 101 and most of the advanced stats we use are in one way or another based on adding or preventing runs, so it may just be me, but I feel like so much of the discussion these days (not just from fans, but media and the team as well) is focused on either very general team-building ideas (we need a RHH) or specific player stats (look at all the WAR he has, etc) instead. Obviously, those run totals are the best indicators of record and postseason chances, and the Sox likely need to add about +70 or +80 to their run differential to be a good bet for the postseason next year. Given that no team in the postseason (aside from the Diamondbacks if they make it) has allowed as many runs as the Red Sox, and the Red Sox will have scored between the 1st and 3rd most runs (depending on the Mets and Diamondbacks) of any team to miss the postseason, the 'obvious' solution is to improve run prevention - but really, there are plenty of ways to improve run differential, and I hope that's not something the team has lost sight of. It's not like I believe that Breslow and the FO have forgotten that runs are important, but I would feel a lot better to hear them discussing things in terms of how they're adding/acquiring runs and (and therefore wins,) instead of all the nothing that Breslow and Cora keep putting out. At any rate this is how I'm going to try and frame my approach to the offseason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darwin's Curve on Sept 27, 2024 14:55:07 GMT -5
And he could have been worse. Got it in one.  |
|
|
