SB Nation Arizona Editor's Pick
Has the Brandon Webb Injury Made Ownership Jumpy?
I have been considering all of these “questionable” trades and baseball moves recently and thought back to when it seemed like every move was a good one. Even the Carlos Quentin deal worked out pretty well with the immediate contribution to Dan Haren. Something seems to have changed from that era to this one. Now a days it seems that every move the Diamondbacks make is one that has to be defended or approached from a different angle in order to see the scenario where the Diamondbacks are considered winners. I must admit I’ve done pretty well at that, but where has the turning point occurred?
Looking back at the transaction history of the Diamondbacks I’d say the faltering in trades began with the Brandon Webb injury debacle. The Diamondbacks came very close in the summer of 2008 to signing Brandon Webb to a three year extension that would have paid him like the ace that he was. Webb however, turned it down and since then has gone from Cy Young contender to scapegoat. I have a feeling that this near disaster has turned the ownership (who is very involved in the club) from baseball men to business men.
The Brandon Webb signing and then catastrophic two year loss of him was a huge bullet dodged but it made the men at the top hesitant to jump back into combat. Since that single event the front office has forced Byrnes and now DiPoto to deal in the sense of a business world and not a baseball world. We must remember this is a business and now the owners are treating it like one.
The Max Scherzer deal was gambling away the high risk high reward of a stud pitcher that most likely would see arm problems in the future for the less talented but more safe option of an Ian Kennedy. I believe this is a similar principle to the Haren deal. Haren was dealt because one ace, Ian Kennedy, Edwin Jackson and 2 replacement level pitchers are not going to win much of anything in the next two years.
So deal Haren while you still can and take what you can get. What they got was “a sure thing for a major league starter” in Corbin, Joe Saunders (a proven middle of the rotation pitcher) and a prospect with a high ceiling. The players were nice but what came with those three guys (4) was price control and safety. By making this deal the ownership (I think they forced DiPoto to make a deal) was diversifying their assets instead of waiting for a Kevin Youkilis line drive to ruin the clubs only high priced commodity.
All of this stems back to the high priced commodity of Brandon Webb that the ownership group was never able to cash in on. They held on to the investment too long (even tried to buy more shares) and then the market crashed and they lost everything. Because of this previous incident the ownership has become skittish investors. Haren showed a small dip in value and the ownership decided to sell before disaster struck.
I think it is going to take either some time or some luck for ownership to have a renewed confidence in the long term investments and we may not see the end of these business moves for a few years. Perhaps some unheralded success is what it is going to take to get the club back into a baseball frame of mind. Hopefully this happens sooner than later or we may end up like Pittsburgh. The Pittsburgh Pirates are one of the more successful businesses in baseball, but they aren’t very good at baseball. We can only hope the Arizona Diamondbacks do not end up the same.
50 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Picked up a back-end starter, a potential back-end starter/swingman, an up-and-down reliever, and if they’re lucky, the PTBNL is a B prospect in Skaggs…
Arizona had no reason to trade Haren, yet.
But, Saunders is a winner says the lame-duck GM.
sup Pat
I don’t think he personally meant that. As you know as a Sox fan DiPoto is a pretty smart guy (and no one in their right mind uses wins as a metric anymore). My guess is his hand was forced and he had to come up with something. The Saunders thing is a way of “paying” part of Haren’s salary.
Blogging about my summer at a Chinese law firm.
NEW BLOG, as my original one is blocked by the Great Firewall.
http://ajinshanghai.wordpress.com/
Nice article AJ
Agree with most of it, though to be picky I think it was the FO that yanked the deal away from Webb after the insurance companies had concerns (which have been proved right)
Sadly the fact the economy has gone south, coupled with falling interest in the team will mean payroll will be reduced. When payroll goes south you have to squeeze every penny and that’s why you go for quantity rather then outright quality.
The 2004 staff and to a lesser extent the 2003/2008 models both had quality high priced arms but failed to get over the line, or utterly fell a million miles short of the line. In my own opinion Dan Haren is not worth 1/5 of your payroll when you don’t have the pieces to be compete. But then I suppose that is the debate, is this group capable of competing? I personally don’t think they are and the FO obviously has privately come to the same conclusion.
The more I think about the Haren deal, the more I’m not appalled by it. If Haren had been a free agent at the end of this season, this is pretty much what we’d have got. 2 1st round draft picks and some money to spend on a FA starter. What’s more, we don’t have to spend the signing bonus money on these 3 players and save the difference between Saunders/Haren.
Also as others have been saying/hinting, perhaps Haren wasn’t as good as we all thought. He’s had a fairly mediocre last 12 months, and he also stuttered across the line during his first season here as well. How do we know Haren doesn’t go south in a hurry the same way as Barry Zito or Carlos Zambrano? I’m not saying he will, but there is a risk there and why should the FO be taking risks when the guy isn’t going to be the difference between playoffs and falling short.
I think the FO does have confidence in this team and that’s why Reynolds, Upton, Young are all on good long term deals. The only thing that’s changed is that they’ve decided that the pitching, both the rotation and the bullpen are not peaking right now and are going to withhold spending big dollars there until they have a bit more faith in the group.
Time for another drink then?
http://www.wimbles.wordpress.com
by Wimb on Jul 28, 2010 2:52 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
yeah I'm not saying that I agree with the Haren trade
in fact I don’t like it much at all but I understand where they’re coming from in making the deal. Should the Front Office relax and maybe let some things play out how they’re going to play out? Probably, but I think Brandon Webb has made them gun shy.
Blogging about my summer at a Chinese law firm.
NEW BLOG, as my original one is blocked by the Great Firewall.
http://ajinshanghai.wordpress.com/
Haren Deal
Your argument seems to be that trading Haren was all right because we weren’t going to win while he was here, and he was expensive. Yep, I agree with all that. I even agree trading Haren was the right move. What I can’t believe is that wecouldn’t get a better deal than we got for him. I’m not so sure we didn’t get more (not just a better deal, but better players) in the Jackson deal.
by Craig from Az on Jul 31, 2010 8:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I see your point
But really look what Houston got for Big Roy, look at the prospects that did (or more aptly didn’t) get traded by ANYONE. Smoak is about the only top tier prospect to go and he went because of Lee’s super attractive rental/sure thing appeal. Clubs are all getting smarter and realising that developing your own talent is going to be far more rewarding then spending massive amounts of dollars and prospects on starters.
The reason you get more for E-Jack is simple, you get a cheaper player with high upside, who even if he bombs isn’t going to cost you a hell of a lot (especially in White Sox terms)
If you pick up Haren then you are committing nearly 30 million over 2 years into 1 guy, who isn’t as much of a sure thing as we might tell ourselves. We’ve all seen how pitchers can go over the hill and down it VERY quickly and you always take that risk with a pitcher, more so when he’s been average for the last 18 months.
The nature of the media today means that names (especially eye catching prospects) are always going to be thrown about to try and get people’s attention. Truth is if the shoe was on the other foot and we had to go out and get Haren now, who would you be prepared to deal?
Would you give up Parker, Enright or Owings? in order to take on a pitcher with $30 million left on his deal a 4.50+ ERA who’s notorious for 2nd half downtrends? I certainly wouldn’t.
It winds me up when people compare this deal now to what we gave up in the first place because the situations are FAR different.
The teams in the market for starters also weren’t that desperate anyway. The Yanks still have a potential playoff rotation of Sabathia, Burnett, Hughes and Pettite and know that Lee is going to be a FA in the summer anyway. The BoSox don’t need anyone, the ChiSox have a solid rotation and already are lumbered with one former NL West pitcher who hasn’t hit the heights on a big contract. There’s no way the Dodgers were going to go for him unless we paid the bulk of the salary, Tampa is projecting they’ll shrink payroll, Atlanta have a great staff, the Mets aren’t moving on anyone.
Who was really DESPERATE for a guy on Haren type money, on Haren’s current performance levels to want to give up their best young talent?
I’m not saying that another deal couldn’t have been made, I’m just thinking that when you break it down and put yourselves in the position of another GM, why would you give up anymore for Dan. As it is I think we did quite well as two of the three prospects project quite nicely and Saunders will at least be of average NL 3/4 standard over the next season and a bit. You need Saunders in there at least to eat up innings and take the pressure off of the presumably young bullpen arms we’ll be blooding and he also has experience etc.
Time for another drink then?
http://www.wimbles.wordpress.com
and i think it's a mistake NOT looking at the whole thing, long term (even though it wasn't all THAT long ago)
It winds me up when people compare this deal now to what we gave up in the first place because the situations are FAR different.
dumping haren means they traded gonzales and anderson for saunders and skaggs, plain and simple.
i would’ve kept haren rather than gamble on skaggs, but it’s not my money (save for maybe .01 percent of it) and i’ve never seen skaggs throw a baseball.
time will tell.
The name of the team is ARIZONA DIAMONDBACKS - "I tried to convince them that what they were doing was an aberration, an imbecility, a stupidity without name"
No, it's NOT plain and simple.
For Gonzalez and Anderson, we also got 586.1 innings of Danny Haren pitching at a 129 ERA+ over 3 years.
Mr. Science Boy
What he said
Added to the fact that Haren cost us a heck of a lot less then he does now, wasn’t he making about $4 million or something silly upon signing!
Time for another drink then?
http://www.wimbles.wordpress.com
I agree with this comment.
But not only Oswalt — look at what the Phillies got for Cliff Lee during the offseason.
Mr. Science Boy
Strangely enough… was just looking on FanGraphs.com and saw that Haren’s xFIP this season is good enough for 6th in all baseball. The rumors of his demise, methinks, have been greatly exaggerated.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
haren was f'ing AWESOME
The name of the team is ARIZONA DIAMONDBACKS - "I tried to convince them that what they were doing was an aberration, an imbecility, a stupidity without name"
Interesting Analysis
There’s a lot of merit to your analysis. It’s true that the plan for the past two seasons was contingent on a healthy Webb, and results might have been quite different had he been healthy. Once the “ace” went down, the original plan was no longer viable.
But it does seem to me that the FO is scrambling without a coherent plan right now. Grab a bunch of ‘prospects’ in hopes that a ‘gem’ emerges while spending as little money as possible rarely works. I’m seeing a pattern that is ‘reactive’ rather than ‘proactive’, and I don’t feel very confident about it.
Anyway, great post AJ.
I'm working my way to grumpy old curmudgeon status with all the grace I can muster.
Great post
and I think that your theory that Webb’s injury influenced the Haren trade is the most cogent I’ve seen for why the Diamondbacks seemed to trade so low.
I also wonder if the combined effects of the Reynolds, Young and Upton contracts haven’t altered the mindset as well. The decision was taken to place long term faith in this particular group of players and it has failed dramatically.
"The stars don't shine down upon us. We're in the way of their light."
by Arizona via Slough on Jul 28, 2010 1:51 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
"Failed dramatically"?
Chris Young is having an All-Star Season, and since coming back from Triple-A last August, has a line of .267/.339/.479 – an .818 OPS, playing CF. Meanwhile, since signing his contract Upton has the best OBP on the team, and has an OPS+ of 118. Even Reynolds has an OPS+ of 110 this year, so they’re all producing above-average offensively, and providing plus defense.
Oh, that all our other players would “fail dramatically” in this way…
"It's not the despair, Laura. I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand." -- Brian Stimpson
by Jim McLennan on Jul 28, 2010 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree totally Jim
I think most fans are a bit reactionary concerning the “Favored” 3 because of strikeout numbers. I’m sure that is a direct result of youth. CY looks much better in that department this year, but Upton and Reynolds still need a ton of work in that department.
by Jack Cromwell on Jul 28, 2010 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions
the team has had better center field play than chris young
this year, he’s shown me he can read a pitcher’s move…. so that’s nice. but he’s still a mediocre “core piece”, compared to the other two.
The name of the team is ARIZONA DIAMONDBACKS - "I tried to convince them that what they were doing was an aberration, an imbecility, a stupidity without name"
Really?
“Chris Young is having an all-star season”. Only because each team must have a rep on the All-Star team. CY is having a fine season, and I would be happy with more of these in the future, but let’s not oversell his ability
“Justin Upton has the best OBP on the team”: -This is the best you can say about our young, budding (supposed) superstar? An OPS+ of 118 is nice, but hardly remarkable.
And I will admit I am floored that Reynolds OPS+ is 110 – I would have guessed 100 at best.
So I would agree that while these players have hardly “failed dramatically”, I would say that my current opinion is:
CY – has had 2 good years (rookie and this year) and two poor years. Hopefully this year is the “real” CY.
J Up – huge, maybe unrealistic expectations here. Has been incredibly streaky. When he’s hot – unstoppable. When he’s not – can look really bad at the plate. Mental toughness and baseball smarts still a question IMO.
Reynolds – I love this guy. Love the way he plays, his aggressiveness, the raw power. But this year he looks more like Dave Kingman than Mike Schmidt. That’s not awful, but it’s not good either. Although his defense has come along very well.
All in all, I still like all 3 of these guys, but I have less confidence in CY than most on this forum. I hope I am wrong
by Craig from Az on Jul 31, 2010 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions
About CY-
He deserved his All Star spot.
From the CY all star post:
…a fantastic rebound to the tune of .264/.326/.481, with 15 homeruns, 57 runs batted in, and is 14/16 in stolen bases in 2010. He’s also 5th among NL centerfielders in wOBA, WAR, and 4th in UZR. There’s not too many centerfielders with this combination of power, glove, and speed in baseball.
Also, he’s now improved to 4th in WAR.
And about Upton-
Having the best OBP on the team is quite a feat when you’re only 22… and recovering from such a crappy start to the season. He’s also .1 WAR behind KJ, for the lead on the team. He’s 5th in wOBA among NL right fielders, 2nd in WAR, and first in UZR and he’s only 22 years old. People forget that. He’s already been in the all star game, he’s a great fielder with an absolute cannon, hitter, and has a bunch of speed. Even if this is his ceiling (even though it isn’t even close) he’s a great player.
Leads/ties blown by the Diamondbacks bullpen in '10: 31
+2
the greatest part about upton’s contract is that even if this is his ceiling, we’re still paying below-market cost for his WAR generation
and, there is always the possibility that he gets better and becomes a perennial 6-7 WAR contributor
Upton and KJ,
incidentally, are our only two players in the top 30 in the majors for WAR.
Mr. Science Boy
He IS having an All-Star season.
In terms of sabrmetric value, he’s ranked the 5th best CF in the game this year, after Andres Torres, Angel Pagan, Marlon Byrd, and Brett Gardner.
Mr. Science Boy
I still shake my head every time I hear Andres Torres in that list.
Leads/ties blown by the Diamondbacks bullpen in '10: 33
Well "fail dramatically"
in the sense that I think that they were projected to be the core of a successful team ,which they clearly aren’t.
I wonder if the FO would build the team arond those three if they were given a second chance?
"The stars don't shine down upon us. We're in the way of their light."
by Arizona via Slough on Jul 28, 2010 7:44 PM EDT reply actions
You're
assuming that a strong core would lead to a strong team, which is not true. The Big Three, so to speak, have been what they needed to be. Where has the rest of the team been? They are the ones that have “failed dramatically.”
No crying in the Snakepit. That's what your apartment is for.
Fair enough
but I suspect that the FO also thought that a strong core would lead to a strong team.
It’s a shame that it didn’t work, because a team built around a group of players that the fans have seen develop from youth would have commanded far more loyalty than any number of promotional gimmicks.
"The stars don't shine down upon us. We're in the way of their light."
by Arizona via Slough on Jul 30, 2010 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions
2 right moves... one big blunder...
Still think it was correct in signing Reynolds & Upton long term…. never agreed with the Webb option, since we couldn’t get a handle on the health then, and now 100+ games later… we STILL can’t
Professional Lurker... if you see this, there may be a problem..
even before any "brandon webb scare"
The Brandon Webb signing and then catastrophic two year loss of him was a huge bullet dodged but it made the men at the top hesitant to jump back into combat. Since that single event the front office has forced Byrnes and now DiPoto to deal in the sense of a business world and not a baseball world. We must remember this is a business and now the owners are treating it like one.
way i see it, this group has been business first ever since the ouster of colangelo. that was the turning point. while not perfect, his group was 100% better than what these losers have put in place.
The name of the team is ARIZONA DIAMONDBACKS - "I tried to convince them that what they were doing was an aberration, an imbecility, a stupidity without name"
Really?
You’d think that the 2004 Diamondbacks were “100% better”?
Colangelo put a good product on the field in the early part of the decade. But that was done by making moves that were an absolute disaster from a business perspective, and that meant the team couldn’t maintain the same course without driving them into crippling bankruptcy.
"It's a fez. I'm wearing a fez now. Fezes are cool."
really?
Colangelo put a good product on the field in the early part of the decade.
ya think????
if you think colangelo didn’t know how to win, didn’t know how to make money or avoid “crippling bankruptcy”, or didn’t also have a long term strategy for success at $50mil payroll….
::shakes head::
The name of the team is ARIZONA DIAMONDBACKS - "I tried to convince them that what they were doing was an aberration, an imbecility, a stupidity without name"
Really?
I’d be fascinated to know what his long-term strategy for success with a $50 million payroll was, since his success in 2001 was on a $81 million payroll that included a lot of deferred payments. You obviously have incredible faith in magical powers of Colangelo payroll manipulation. However, reality in no way supports that.
And you still haven’t explained how the team Colangelo put on the field in 2004- the one that cost $80 million, and lost 111 games- fits in with your visions of how he could put together a World Series team on a shoestring budget.
"It's a fez. I'm wearing a fez now. Fezes are cool."
colangelo was looking to run it like oakland, minnesota, texas
kendrick and co. seem to be working it like the pirates. they make money too, i believe.
The name of the team is ARIZONA DIAMONDBACKS - "I tried to convince them that what they were doing was an aberration, an imbecility, a stupidity without name"
He may have been looking to run it like Oakland, Minnesota, or Texas
But he actually ran it in a manner closer to the Yankees.
And aren’t the Rangers filing for bankruptcy? Maybe not your best choice of examples.
"It's a fez. I'm wearing a fez now. Fezes are cool."
+1
purely for the fez reference.
"The stars don't shine down upon us. We're in the way of their light."
by Arizona via Slough on Jul 31, 2010 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions
What evidence did he ever show that he wanted to run the org like oakland, minnesota and texas??? All he did was throw cash at FA’s.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
evidence? i doubt such a thing exists.
“We went another direction to establish a fan base because our investment was much larger than Tampa Bay’s. And we put so much money into our own stadium ($130 million). After the first year and the decrease in season tickets, I was convinced we had to build a fan base.”
The D’backs drew 3.6 million their first year, but that tumbled to 3 million in 1999, 2.9 million in 2000 and 2.7 million in ’01.
A four-year plan was established with an eight-year payout.
“We won three division titles, a World Series and established a fan base,” he said. “I believe what we did will last a long, long time.”
I asked why the payback plan didn’t work and the debt increased. Where did he expect to get the money down the road?
“Right or wrong, a number of teams today are in the $50 million payroll range and competitive — Oakland, Minnesota, Texas are examples. Our goal was to get returns from our farm system. We built into our cash-flow that we would be paying out the deferments and that our payroll could drop to $50 million for a few years.”
What happened? “A few things hurt us,” he said. “The economy was bad, and I was hoping for more national money (from baseball’s central fund) coming in.”
Colangelo has been in the sports business all his life and seen managers, coaches and players come and go, but never did he expect his demise to play out like this.
“When you make a change it’s gut-wrenching,” he said. “But I would never have anticipated an exit like this. I don’t have a problem with those with resources wanting to make a change. That’s OK. I could have fought it but didn’t.”
i guess you can choose to believe ken (“gonzo was on steroids”) kendrick, or believe in him.
do you disagree that the 2007 roster was full of colangelo regime farm system players?
my original observation (to the author of the post) is that the kenrick ouster of colangelo marks the point where the organization gets “jumpy” over money. but upon reflection, i should’ve said it’s where they become baseball clueless.
perhaps i agree with the author ajforaz that a point has been turned now, though. if the haren trade “wins” to the extent that skaggs becomes the next john lester, would they ever pay him like haren? should they even? is the system (originally buck showalter’s and roland hemond’s, as far as i can tell) currently capable of playing the moneyball game like minny or oakland? if they get the 3rd pick in the draft, are they gonna pay him or keep it?
at least old roland hemond is back…
The name of the team is ARIZONA DIAMONDBACKS - "I tried to convince them that what they were doing was an aberration, an imbecility, a stupidity without name"
by marionette on Aug 1, 2010 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Alright, prepare for itemized rebuttal.
Nobody’s calling you or Colangelo liars, but the man can talk all he wants about how he was totally going to be competitive with a $50 million payroll — just after this season. It’s like a crack addict saying he’s gonna stop, but not until after this next high. Cot’s Contracts puts the Dbacks’ payrolls from 2000 until Colangelo’s ouster in 2004 at $78 million, $86 million, $103 million, $81 million, and $70 million. Somehow, I don’t see a $50 million in there — not even close.
I don’t know what that has to do with Ken Kendrick. (Who was 100% right, I believe, when he implied that Gonzo did ‘roids) Colangelo spent like a drunken sailor. This isn’t a question of taking the current owner’s side against the former.
Now, the 2007 team. Eric Byrnes and Orlando Hudson provided the most value to the 2007 team. Byrnes arrived as a bargain bin free agent after Colangelo left, and Hudson arrived in a trade — after Colangelo left. Chris Young arrived in a trade — after Colangelo left. Tony Clark arrived as a free agent — after Colangelo left.
The players who DID arrive during the Colangelo era? Only Mark Reynolds and Conor Jackson were above average hitters, and Chad Tracy was exactly AT league average. Chris Snyder — OPS+ of 94. Stephen Drew — OPS+ of 71. Carlos Quentin — OPS+ of 63. Miguel Montero — OPS+ of 72. Scott Hairston — OPS+ of 65. Robby Hammock — OPS+ of 51.
Shall we discuss the rotation? Brandon Webb arrived during the Colangelo era, as did Edgar Gonzalez and his 95 ERA+. Livan Hernandez, Doug Davis, Micah Owings, and Yusmeiro Petit came later.
Mr. Science Boy
"This isn’t a question of taking the current owner’s side against the former".
to be fair, that is a little bit what it looks like.
"The stars don't shine down upon us. We're in the way of their light."
by Arizona via Slough on Aug 2, 2010 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, because
that’s the way marionette has defined the debate, but what I’m talking about are objective facts.
Mr. Science Boy
Webb Injury?
A little off the subject at this point, but I gotta say it.
Brandon Webb is a head case! The Doc who operated on him saw him about a year ago in consultation and his report was that the shoulder was then perfectly normal….i.e. no anatomic defects.
So why is he so hesitant to throw? Why is he sitting on the bench for almost two full years collecting full salary and complaining he can’t throw full speed. Maybe he’s afraid. Why risk exposing any potential weakness when you can get paid for doing nothing?
Just get out there and throw as hard as you can every day. You’re not going to hurt anything! The shoulder is NORMAL!!! I wouldn’t be able to throw full speed either if I hadn’t tried it for two years.
What is with bagging on the organizations best homegrown player ever?
Really? Yeah, he is so lazy. Haven’t heard that one before.
Nice strikeout!
Bravo and well said
Anyone who attempts to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin.
by unnamedDBacksfan on Aug 7, 2010 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Another so called fan
that slept at a Holiday Inn? Isn’t simply amazing how spending a night there can bring out the best medical doctors?
Webb must be lazy… yeah, that’s it. Lord knows winning a Cy Young Award is so easy and common place now a days….
Anyone who attempts to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin.
by unnamedDBacksfan on Aug 7, 2010 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
The Doc who operated on him
operated on him about a year ago, and I do challenge you to present a quote that his shoulder was “then perfectly normal”.
Why risk exposing any potential weakness when you can get paid for doing nothing?
Because doing nothing means he’s gonna get jack shit for his next contract? Which happens after this season?
Just get out there and throw as hard as you can every day. You’re not going to hurt anything! The shoulder is NORMAL!!
May I see your credentials, Mr. Superman, with your x-ray vision?
I wouldn’t be able to throw full speed either if I hadn’t tried it for two years.
Nor have you ever had labrum surgery.
Mr. Science Boy
by DbacksSkins on Aug 9, 2010 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

by 


















