Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: MLB postseason scores, schedules and blog coverage Bar-right-arrows

More Tribe Trade Speculation from Olney

Leprechaun-amateur-sketch_tiny by TheDanimal on

C.C. Sabathia made pitching look easy Tuesday night, writes Jim Ingraham. The Indians have reportedly been scouting the Red Sox farm system, presumably in preparation for the possibility of trade talks with Boston about Sabathia. Let's play this scenario out a bit.

Here's how the Red Sox could rationalize a deal for Sabathia: They have a whole lot of depth in their farm system, and by adding Sabathia for the last two months and the postseason, they could strengthen an already deep rotation and apply a 6-foot-7, 300-pound hammer as they pursued their third championship in five years. They have the talent depth in their farm system to tell the Indians: Look, you can't have Justin Masterson, Jon Lester or Clay Buchholz, but we can make a deal built around others. Double-A pitcher Michael Bowden could be an interesting conversation piece, given his dominant showing for Portland.

 

And at the end of the year, the Red Sox could just offer Sabathia arbitration and let him walk away as a free agent and recoup two draft picks for the 2007 Cy Young Award winner. To repeat: All of that is pure speculation, and probably won't happen.

 

Some folks within the industry think that if Sabathia is traded, the Cubs will be the most aggressive in bidding for him. "They're going for it this year," said one GM. "Other teams are laying back and might not want to trade prospects, but the Cubs will."

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=olney_buster

I'm still naive enough to not want to consider trading C.C. yet.

But if we did trade him to the Red Sox, I would hope we would at least get a bat and an arm. Would Lowrie and Bowden be too much for half a season of C.C.?

The Cubs would seem to be more interesting. Maybe we could get Pie and a promising arm, like Gallagher . Is Vitters too far away to be of use for the Tribe?

We should really be focusing on trading with the Giants. It's been about five year's since Sabean's last great trade. Time to offer him Victor for Cain, Lincecum and Angel Villalona.

 

0 recs | Comment 215 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I really don’t want to trade anybody. The White Sox are a flawed team. We can beat them.

And if we were to trade CC I would have Mr. Dolan make an owners only meeting with Steinbrenner. Target him and maybe we could fleece the Yankees.

by gahnki on Jun 11, 2008 1:49 PM EDT   0 recs

MLBTR did nothing wrong!

by Brick. on Jun 11, 2008 1:57 PM EDT   0 recs

Really? All the top prospects are off limits?

by dgcambridge on Jun 11, 2008 1:57 PM EDT   0 recs

Trade a Cy Young winner and not get Buchholz, Lester, or Masterson in return? Ha.

by JesseAK on Jun 11, 2008 1:57 PM EDT   0 recs

That’s probably realistic. He’s only theirs for a few months.

by gahnki on Jun 11, 2008 2:04 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Interesting comments about the Red Sox. They have done so abnormally well with recent compensation picks that (a) they can well afford to trade advanced prospects for a couple more picks, and (b) they may somewhat over-value those picks, believing they can keep getting players like that without much difficulty.

I also don’t see why Buchholz would be off-limits, struggling a bit and just a few months from turning 24. I don’t see that he’s any more valuable than Sowers, and nobody’s saying he’s untouchable.

by Jay on Jun 11, 2008 2:04 PM EDT   0 recs

the way the text wrapped, i first read that as “turning 24.1” for a second i thought that boy were you taking your service time nomenclature too far.

by Brick. on Jun 11, 2008 2:28 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I also don’t see why Buchholz would be off-limits

NOHITTER NOHITTER NOHITTER

by NickFantana on Jun 11, 2008 2:35 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Sure, but what you done for me lately?

by Jay on Jun 11, 2008 3:24 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree with you Jay…I dont see why we couldnt get him. I would rate him a little higher than Sowers but what is so special?

by Tribe Alive on Jun 11, 2008 3:42 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

While I don’t put a ton of stock in it, Buchholz was the 4th best prospect in the game according to BA. Sowers, obviously, isn’t on that list.

I don’t disagree that they’re similar. But, the shine is off of Sowers. It’s not off of Buchholz yet. That matters to other GMs who will pay more for Buchholz.

by afh4 on Jun 11, 2008 3:50 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Really?

I’m not asking this in a “get out of your basement you stat-headed nerd” way, but have you actually seen him pitch? The vision test puts him way above Sowers. I don’t mind admitting I have a prospect-crush on him.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jun 11, 2008 7:22 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

To the extent that you’re a professional scout, I totally trust your judgment on this.

by Jay on Jun 12, 2008 6:43 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I’m as much a professional scout as E was a kinesiologist.

But I’m open to the discussion. Especially looking at your own projection, what you’ve seen, and what their ceilings are, what do you see in Buchholz (or Sowers) that makes you rank them so equal?

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jun 12, 2008 10:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I really need to punch that “Z” key before I post. I just saw your response to Clark.

All things being equal, I’ll take Buchholz. He walks more people but he strikes out way more than Sowers ever could. They both get groundballs.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jun 12, 2008 10:14 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Me personally, I don’t see how we can make a deal with Boston (nevermind what happened last postseason – I guess) and not get Lester or Buchholz in return. Masterson is not the caliber of those other two, IMO. He seems to be pitching out of his mind right now, and should struggle to come close to maintaining his #s for the rest of the season.

As for Buchholz and Sowers, you aren’t serious, are you?

The 2008 Cleveland Indians: Home of the Triple Steal, Unassisted Triple Play, and not a heck of a lot more.

by westbrook on Jun 11, 2008 6:24 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

This isn’t quite on point, but I think the compensation system has had an interesting effect. Teams that are revolving doors for high price free agents consistently end up with that extra pick or two every year.

by dgcambridge on Jun 11, 2008 6:39 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Well I mean if all you’re looking at is age when judging a prospect, then sure Clay isn’t any more valuable. But who the hell does that?

by Joe. on Jun 11, 2008 10:44 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Clay Buchholz is more valuable than Sowers by any measure. You can base that off his past track record, scouting reports, and PECOTA.

by ClarkM on Jun 11, 2008 11:09 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I feel like I’m watching ESPN here — what with all the overhype of Boston prospects.

I’ll take Buchholz over Sowers, purely based on the 15-month difference in age. The other differences, however, are pretty tiny.

PECOTA is heavily influenced by last season but knows nothing about the current season, where Sowers on balance has out-performed Buchholz. Buchholz dazzled in 2007, but not as much as Sowers did in 2006. Go look it up.

Buccholz entered 2007 as BA’s #51 prospect. Sowers entered 2006 at #53. Again … not really seeing the big difference here. Had Sowers stayed in the minors a little longer and not exhausted his rookie status, he clearly would have been ranked higher than Buccholz to start 2007.

“But but but,” you’re about to say, “that was at the start of 2007! After that Buccholz was a lot better.” Yes, things can change in just a few months. Starting 2007, Sowers was signficantly ahead. Mid-2007, it’s basically a tie as Sowers struggles in the majors while Buccholz is kicking butt two levels lower. By the end of 2007, and entering 2008, Buccholz is clearly ahead. Mid-2008, right now, it’s a dead heat again, as Buccholz has struggled in the majors while Sowers has dominated in Triple-A.

The peak value for either player was Sowers at the start of 2007. If you think they’re that far apart, you’re just mistaken. Let’s not forget, Sowers was a #6 overall pick, and it’s not like he’s been a letdown!

by Jay on Jun 12, 2008 6:42 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Clay seems to be suffering from a serious BABIP problem this year. He’s still missing bats and he’s still not giving up homers.

Sowers has not looked sharp in his fourteen innings in the majors, but at one level lower he had a great ERA in 60 innings desipte decent peripherals. Sowers has only “dazzled” at the big league level because of nice BABIP luck.

So where does Laffey fall into this because a couple weeks ago, you told me how much better Laffey was than Sowers?

by ClarkM on Jun 13, 2008 12:37 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Simple. Laffey is better than Buchholz.

Unless you think hype is a meaningful stat.

by Jay on Jun 13, 2008 2:45 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

No, but I do think stikeout rate is.

by ClarkM on Jun 13, 2008 7:22 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

what about groundball rate

by Gradyforpresident on Jun 13, 2008 11:40 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

They’re not just far apart. They’re centuries apart. Eons perhaps. Instead of just falling back on the “hey it’s a Boston/Yankee prospetc, he must be overratedt” because we know that line of thinking makes you a hero over here (even though it’s the same exact thing as overhyping a big market prospect, just in reverse), let’s actually take an objective look at these two prospects.

Judging their BA rankings without further explaining their different paths to the ranking they achieved disregards precisely what makes these two prospects so different from each other. Sowers’s ranking in 2006 in many ways of actually an insult. It spoke to how little scouts thought of his stuff and it’s projectablity in the major leagues. Think about it: He started the year in high A and finished in AAA. He was absolutely dominant in all three levels, although he only had one start in AAA. A prospect with that kind of an ascension in one year is guaranteed to crack BA’s top 50 and very likely to break their top 20. Contrastingly, Joba Chamberlain’s meteoric rise through the minors earned him a top 10 spot this year after not even being ranked the previous year.

Clay Buchholz, on the other hand, didn’t even get past High A when he earned his ranking in 2007 so that ranking was the complete opposite of Sowers’s ranking. It was nearly entirely determined by projectability and how highly scouts thought of his stuff. This is evidenced by Buchholz being in the top 10 in 2008 after he enjoyed a similar fast track season in 07 to Sowers’s 06. So if you’re going to compare BA rankings, those are the ones you need to show if you’re going to actually fairly compare the two players.

In addition, if you’re going to trust BA to not overrate Boston prospects with their 2007 ranking of Buchholz, why are you thinking it’s the ESPN hype machine that earned him his 2008 ranking? Because it was really high?

Finally I’ll challenge the notion that Sowers was more dominant in 06 than Buchholz was in 07. They were similarly dominant in AA but Buchholz reached AAA and pitched 38 innings there of complete dominance. Sowers has yet to dominate peripherally in AAA or MLB for that matter.

Sowers never has had and never will have the ace potential Buchholz has.

by Joe. on Jun 13, 2008 2:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Joe, I did take an objective look at the two. You’re speculating about the motivations behind rankings that are based on a subjective sense of the consensus of a bunch of scouts’ subjective evaluations — and somehow I’m the one not being objective?

Everything I cited was objective. So you can take back all that BS about who’s making assumptions and what makes someone a hero. I’m calling it like I see it, you’re calling it as you’ve been instructed.

The fact is, Buchholz is a little old and under-accomplished to be talking about his ace-dom. With stuff that good, he should be mowing down major leaguers by now, pitching okay-to-great in every game, and he isn’t. He’s a few months older than Adam Miller, and hasn’t been injured, and hasn’t really done anything more. Pitchers don’t get better stuff after age 23, and he’ll be 24 in a couple months. Miller was as good two years ago as Buchholz is now, and if healthy, we’d be profoundly disappointed if he were only as effective as Buchholz has been.

His stuff is really tough to hit, he gets the K’s, but he doesn’t have the control. You’re drooling over a pile of K’s in eight Triple-A starts, but it’s only eight starts — before Sowers turned 23, he already had 24 Triple-A starts with an ERA under 1.50 and only one HR allowed — what did Buchholz do at 22? Sowers followed this up with 14 starts in the majors at an ERA of 3.57 — this, by the way, is better than Buchholz has ever managed in Triple-A.

K rates are the most important thing, but they're not so important as to outweigh that degree of run-suppressing dominance.  Your position is essentially, great stuff counts, control and pitchability don't count.  And if that were true, then these two would be miles apart.  Had Buchholz not thrown the no-hitter, and were he not property of Boston, he would not be discussed in the same breath with guys like Chamberlain.

If the two guys had swapped organizations in the offseason, Sowers would still be in the majors right now — and would have been all season — and Buchholz would still be in the minors. Does that not basically tell you all you need to know?

by Jay on Jun 13, 2008 3:37 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Why does the sentence starting with “K rates are the most” read in a courier font for me and get cut off?

Also, I think the problem with all this is that we’re talking about Jeremy Sowers. Jeremy Sowers is an odd, odd duck. It’s hard to compare him to anyone and not get a lot of people angry one way or the other.

by afh4 on Jun 13, 2008 3:41 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Once, at Burger King, I got up to get more ketchup, and while I was gone Jeremy Sowers ate like half of my onion rings.

by fleerdon on Jun 13, 2008 3:46 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

See what I mean? There’s a lot of anger surrounding Jeremy Sowers.

by afh4 on Jun 13, 2008 3:54 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think my anger against Jeremy Sowers is justified but not irrational. If he actually starts getting some peripherally sound results in AAA or MLB, I’ll have no problem getting excited about him again.

I’m angry at Jeremy Sowers because in his prospect career he has conned me twice. Once with his A and AA stats into thinking a guy with his stuff was actually going to rack up K’s (I’m not asking for a K/9 13 here but 7?) and keep his walks down in AAA and MLB. After that, he conned me with his AAA stats into thinking he was Neo from the Matrix and that that would or even could translate at the big league level for a prolonged period. Each time I ended up wanting to slap myself for buying into something that my instincts knew was just too good to be logically true.

by Joe. on Jun 13, 2008 7:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Sowers doesn’t miss enough bats, but it’s his poor control that kills him. Jamie Moyers career K/9 is 5.37.

by odradek on Jun 13, 2008 8:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Right. His downfall last year was his 21 walks in 68 innings.

by Joe. on Jun 13, 2008 8:57 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

You should have made Jeremy get the ketchup. He weighs only 85 pounds.

by odradek on Jun 13, 2008 4:08 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

He hit spacebar/tab before typing. I’ve done it before as well and it’s annoying as hell.

by gahnki on Jun 13, 2008 3:46 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

this reminds me when i asked if there was a chance hughes was overrated.

remember everyone, TINSTAPP.

by Brick. on Jun 13, 2008 3:58 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Not to bring that up again since you took my comment personally then (which I did not intend) but I only took issue when you asked because you solely asked based on the fact that he was a Yankee prospect.

TINSTAPP means nothing here. We all know how flukey pitchers are but if we are grading them as prospects (which is all we can do), Hughes had in the past and still has very high chances of becoming at least an above average MLB pitcher.

by Joe. on Jun 13, 2008 7:44 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

of couse i asked it becuase he was a yankee prospect. that’s why i thought he might be overrated. a simple, nope – in this case it’s not just yankee hype would have been fine.

and i’m just messing around with the TINSTAPP thing.

by Brick. on Jun 13, 2008 8:17 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

As a fan of niether team

And generally a distaste for the hype the Red Sox prospects get, Buchholz is a far far better pitcher than Sowers.

by groundingout on Jun 16, 2008 2:04 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

case closed.

by Brick. on Jun 16, 2008 2:12 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The fearsome Niether Team Bulldogs who are dominating Japanese league play was we speak.

by gahnki on Jun 16, 2008 2:19 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

You mean today, right this very second? If that’s what you mean, I don’t think so. If you mean that Buchholz has more potential than Sowers, you may have a case. If you mean that Buchholz is going to be a better pitcher, sometime in the future – sure why not? And I think that Laffey’s gonna win the Cy Young Award someday – so what?

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Jun 16, 2008 2:31 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Wow, that is a very strong argument you’ve crafted there.

by Jay on Jun 16, 2008 3:51 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Bowden and Lars Anderson would be on my short list of Sox prospects.

by mcrose on Jun 11, 2008 2:11 PM EDT   0 recs

I think Bowden could be a good add, as we seem to have fallen in love with soft-tossers lately.

Let's Go 2009!

by emd2k3 on Jun 11, 2008 2:19 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Lars Anderson = 0.5*Weglarz + Boston hype

by oxforddave on Jun 13, 2008 12:37 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I’m confused by this statement. First off, I’d like you to try to explain how Anderson is half as good as Weglarz. I think that’s going to be a pretty tough task. I think the reason most “prospect gurus” like Anderson better is that, unlike Weglarz he supposedly projects to hit for a high average and like Weglarz projects to hit for power and patience. They are both 20 and they both play non-skill defensive positions.

As for the hype part, I just don’t buy this. I mean, who is doing the hyping and who is buying into it and why? Do you really think so little of Jim Callis, Keith Law, Kevin Goldstein, and John Sickels that you think they are incapable of filtering out the hype? Who else talks about these people or maybe I missed the Baseball Tonight segment where Kruk proclaimed Lars Anderson to be a future hall of famer.

by ClarkM on Jun 15, 2008 4:39 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think we would need some luck to go our way to make the playoffs. I think it would take a miracle to get by the Red Sox in a seven game series. That’s why I think you trade CC regardless of where we stand in late July. Prefrebly to the NL.

I think the backlash from trading CC will be far less than what Shapiro got for trading Colon or Alomar. Fans understand our position and the type of value CC represents in a trade.

by Toxicadam on Jun 11, 2008 2:44 PM EDT   0 recs

It doesn’t anything like a miracle for any team to beat any other team in a short series.

by SuddenSam on Jun 11, 2008 2:50 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Hear hear. But imagine if we traded CC for prospects in July, then managed to sneak past the White Sox in September, only to have to face CC pitching for Boston in the playoffs. Anything can happen in a short series, but why would we want to do that to ourselves?

Pie is struggling mightily in AAA. Gallagher looks pretty good, but that doesn’t address our dire need for bats. What else have the Cubs got?

by ken from alexandria on Jun 11, 2008 3:03 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

then managed to sneak past the White Sox in September, only to have to face CC pitching for Boston in the playoffs

I’d salivate at the possibility.

by SuddenSam on Jun 11, 2008 3:44 PM EDT to parent up   1 recs

Exactly. If you think he was hyped up and struggling with control last year, yikes! Shapiro IS a genius. – Beastie Boys, Sabotage -

by NickFantana on Jun 11, 2008 4:04 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

And our front office should supply tickets for his entire family.

by SuddenSam on Jun 11, 2008 4:09 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

and tell him that returning to Cleveland is just like returning to Oakland.

The 2008 Cleveland Indians: Home of the Triple Steal, Unassisted Triple Play, and not a heck of a lot more.

by westbrook on Jun 11, 2008 6:26 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

“Fans understand our position and the type of value CC represents in a trade.”

Yeah, 10% of our fans know enough about the subject to comprehend all this. The other 90% will see this as yet another local star sent packing for the sake of saving money.

by elsandito on Jun 11, 2008 2:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think that a lot of “common fans” recognize that we aren’t going to stand a chance at re-signing CC. Most would want to get something for him.

by gahnki on Jun 11, 2008 3:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

the problem is, those same “fans” would think Atkins and Holliday in return would be fair and reasonable for both sides, and would accept nothing less or whine about it on cleveland.com

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Jun 11, 2008 3:12 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I just checked cleveland.com to find out about Bentley’s release. The lowest type of people go there. After reading about 10 people wishing that he blows his knee out I left.

by gahnki on Jun 11, 2008 3:14 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

That really bums me out. LeCharles was a high school classmate of mine, and I know how thrilled he was to be back in Cleveland. He did a ton for St. I during his time back in Cleveland, as well as for the rest of the community. No one is more disappointed than he is at the string of freak incidents that left him so injured (and his life threatened). I don’t think he blames the Browns at all for moving on, and just wants the chance to keep playing, and the Browns respected him enough to give him that. People so full of anger about it are ridiculous.

Il faut d'abord durer.

by CU Adam on Jun 11, 2008 6:39 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I’ll be completely honest. I have zero respect for LeCharles Bentley. It has nothing to do with this situation, but some “things” that happened while he was at Ohio State. I don’t feel it is appropriate to speak of them here, but I wouldn’t want him anywhere near my team.

I would never hope that he blows his knee out, but this further confirms my thoughts on LeCharles Bentley. He is all business, all of the time.

by gahnki on Jun 11, 2008 6:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I’m not saying a person can’t change (for better or for worse), but like Adam, I was a classmate of his. I won’t lie and say we were buddies or that he’d even remember my name if I walked up and shook his hand, but I got to know him a bit more than most in having a group of classes with him during sophomore year. And while he didn’t have bags of cash sitting underneath his desk at the time, he did have some hype around him and he remained down to earth and approachable.

So he may have changed, and if so, that’s too bad. It would be nice of the people who speak badly of him have dealt with him firsthand, and not just from stories in the media or any other secondhand stories heard around campus.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Jun 12, 2008 9:55 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

LeCharles is not a bad person. However, he is the definiton of selsfish. I don’t like players who are more concerned with making money than honoring the commitment that they have made to their university.

by gahnki on Jun 12, 2008 11:39 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

So this essentially has to do with him leaving school early?

Il faut d'abord durer.

by CU Adam on Jun 12, 2008 4:23 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

No. He was a senior at Ohio State. It has to do with prioritizing his impending professional career over that of his teammates and coaches.

by gahnki on Jun 12, 2008 4:42 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

he is the definiton of selsfish

Unlike big-time football universities that pimp their football players out like crack whores.

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Jun 12, 2008 4:42 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Universities benefit greatly from their players services while they are there. There is obviously no denying that. But a player receives a free education for his commitment and is generally revered by fans. It’s a nice trade off that works well.

by gahnki on Jun 12, 2008 4:46 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

no they don’t. athletic departments benefit, not universities.

by Gradyforpresident on Jun 12, 2008 4:50 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Maybe in Ohio, but at Nebraska the economic hit this university and city would take if the Huskers struggle is enormous.

by mjschaefer on Jun 12, 2008 4:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

well, i’m in Iowa City, and I can tell you that the university – that is, the higher education mission it tries to fulfill – is in no way helped by our athletics department. modern collegiate athletics have nothing to do with education, which is what universities are about.

by Gradyforpresident on Jun 12, 2008 4:58 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Oh really? Cause here enrollment numbers would go down. The student body is about as actively engaged in athletics as you will find any where else in the country. Again does the Athletic Department give directly to the University? No, but they do indirectly like gahnki points out.

by mjschaefer on Jun 12, 2008 5:11 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

if enrollment went down here, that would probably be a good thing. money has nothing to do with this argument.

by Gradyforpresident on Jun 12, 2008 5:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

How is losing money a good thing?

by mjschaefer on Jun 12, 2008 5:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I’ve now seen this a little bit from the administrative end of a University. And I’ll say I was surprised how much schools, non-flagship public Universities in particular, are obsessed with enrollment numbers. It’s important.

by APV on Jun 12, 2008 5:17 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

but is that obsession important in a good way?

by Gradyforpresident on Jun 12, 2008 5:18 PM EDT