What to do with Shoppach?
by Brick. on Nov 11, 2009 5:19 PM EST
118 comments
So, it seems like every article you read these days that talks about the Indians near future says that Kelly Shoppach is a likely candidate to be non-tendered this off season. Is a catcher one year removed from a break-out 21-bombs in 112 games, .865 OPS season really not worth offering an arbitration salary to?
The recently talked about Bill James projections have him playing 113 games for someone this year at .249 BA / .333 OBP / .465 SLG / .798 OPS and 19 HR.
The payroll is pretty low already. Would Shoppach's contract make that big a dent - so big it's not worth the value he brings as a free swinging, slugging catcher? The Indians don't plan to compete this season. Santana is the obvious future. But what about 2010? Is there not value in a player like this for the coming season?
0 recs |
118 comments
Email
Print
Comments
i think i wouldn’t hesitate to outright toregas off the 40-man.
by Brick. on Nov 11, 2009 5:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Given our catching depth, no. But I think he’d be taken. And I think it’d be worth considering whether you would rather keep Toregas or Gimenez.
by APV on Nov 11, 2009 5:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that’s the exact inner conversation i had. and i chose gimenez i guess because of his versatility.
by Brick. on Nov 11, 2009 5:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I choose Toregas for the exact same reason. I don’t want Acta to start going Wedge all over the place.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Nov 11, 2009 11:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Prior to Wedge’s dismissal, I would have outrighted Gimenez just so I wouldn’t have to see him every freaking day. Toregas is a perfect back-up c. Is Marson too good to be a back-up?
by stuart dean on Nov 12, 2009 11:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Where is the “Trade Shoppach after ’08 season” option?
by APV on Nov 11, 2009 5:46 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Same.
LGT's resident moderate Yankee hating fan.
by Joe. on Nov 11, 2009 7:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ditto.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Nov 11, 2009 11:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They tried but I was told in classic FO speak “The market for him did not develop in a manner that we anticipated and hoped for”
by stuart dean on Nov 12, 2009 11:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m sure that market is better than this years market.
I just wanted to believe.
by mjmarble on Nov 12, 2009 6:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t be so sure. Shoppach is diminished, but there was some flash-in-the-pan element to what he did in 2008 regardless. His career numbers are still very solid, and I kind of agree with odradek’s assertion that he needs to re-establish his defensive bona fides as well. (Granted, this is only odradek’s assertion in my fantasy world, where odie doesn’t have a knee-jerk over-emphasis on a hitter’s batting average and strikeouts.)
Moreover, Shoppach’s value is determined not only by Shoppach but by and each club’s financial situation and best alternatives to Shoppach. It may well be that even with Shoppach’s profile diminished, his value has actually gone up. Clubs are still not looking to spend big, but they can’t be as completely terrified of massive losses as they were a year ago.
by Jay on Nov 12, 2009 6:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
..knee-jerk over-emphasis on a hitter’s batting average and strikeouts.)
I do understand the limitations of BA. I simply argued that BA is not meaningless. It is a flawed indicator of hitting ability. The signal-to-noise ratio is bad with BA, but there’s something there.
As for strikeouts, I understand three true outcomes. I really do. But strikeouts are not neutral outs. Other than double-plays (and triple plays, of course), it is the worst sort of out to make (and the best sort of out for a pitcher). My complaint about Shoppach isn’t that he strikes out, but that he swings at pitches low and away that no one could hit. Shoppach’s strikeouts are an indication of bad habits. They are indications of a lousy hitter. He is clueless at the plate for months at a time. (Your argument about Garko’s hot two weeks at the end of 2008 could be applied to Shoppach.)
by odradek on Nov 13, 2009 9:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Browser crash just obliterated my brilliant reply. You were totally destroyed, trust me.
by Jay on Nov 13, 2009 11:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
But strikeouts are not neutral outs
Are we seriously going to do this again?
by fwembt on Nov 14, 2009 1:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I also was in on this. They should trade him if they can, if not let him go.
by Cols714 on Nov 11, 2009 10:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They should trade him if they can, if not let him go.
Why in the world would you let him go?
by APV on Nov 11, 2009 11:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Is it possible to unrec: with out having previously recc’d?
by stuart dean on Nov 12, 2009 11:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently, LGT, like Facebook, needs a “dislike” option.
by Nat on Nov 12, 2009 2:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
IMHO, this team is going nowhere until Carlos Santana is installed as our regular catcher and is earning the right to bat in the middle (3-6) of the lineup. I would trade Shoppach, maybe for a live bullpen arm, and entrust the catching duties to Marson/Toregas until Santana has shown he’s ready (middle of 2010?).
by ken from alexandria on Nov 11, 2009 5:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Trade him for a live bullpen arm?
Unless we’re talking about a live bullpen arm with the potential to transition into the starting rotation, the Indians would be foolish. Not every team has a catcher as good as Kelly Shoppach.
Look at Bengie Molina. Look at the deal he just finished. Look at the money he’ll make this offseason. Shoppach is better than him.
by xrickx on Nov 11, 2009 8:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I pretty much agree. We added a lot of “live bullpen arms” last year. If we’re going to acquire guys now via trade, I’d sort of prefer they be guys who pitch more than an inning at a time or who play more than twice a week.
by APV on Nov 11, 2009 8:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Shoppach is in entering his 2nd arbitration year now though isn’t he? My understanding is that the market is shifting away from arbitration guys in general, which probably significantly devalues him in a trade, unfortunately.
by Roger Dorn on Nov 11, 2009 10:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He is, having made $1.9M last season. I guess I suspect him to get in the $3-3.5M range, but I really have no idea with this stuff. Now doesn’t seem like the time to trade him, though, unless there is a real seller’s market (which there isn’t).
by APV on Nov 11, 2009 11:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Unless we start hearing that we’re thinking about doing something radical like moving Santana to 3B or something, isn’t Lou Marson the better candidate to deal?
Both from a more attractive return standpoint, and a break up the logjam standpoint?
by cheech99 on Nov 11, 2009 6:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I feel like he and donald are nice chips to keep or deal.
by Brick. on Nov 11, 2009 7:14 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Sitting here watching MLBN hotstove. Why does Minaya not come calling?
by Brick. on Nov 11, 2009 7:19 PM EST via mobile reply actions 0 recs
I have never understood how Shoppach keeps getting talked about this way.
I mean, yes, he is a non-tender candidate, if you define that as:
- Arbitration eligible.
- Under club control but not under contract for next year.
- Coming off a down year.
It’s tough to find comparables for Shoppach’s arbitration case. Most players who came into last season with 4+ years of service time were either (a) in the middle of multi-year deals, like Grady, or (b) low-end free agent signings for the minimum, i.e., they had been non-tendered. Three comps I found for Shoppach’s situation are Jorge Cantu (3.5M), Gerald Laird (2.8M), and Jason Kubel (2.9M).
Shoppach basically has been a part-time player, and he’s not coming off an impressive season. I’m not the greatest at forecasting these things, but I see little reason why he’d make more next year than those three players did this year. And at anything like 3M, Shoppach is a huge bargain. He’s a two- to three-win player with some upside.
by Jay on Nov 11, 2009 7:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
This is how I feel. Only without all the back up that puts it in such a good perspective. I’m more like “huh? Why non-tender him? Dude is worth it.”
by Brick. on Nov 11, 2009 8:18 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
I selected non-tender because of this post.
by Toxicadam on Nov 11, 2009 9:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I forgot to add that you use that money you save to make beer prices .50 cents lower.
Everybody wins.
by Toxicadam on Nov 11, 2009 9:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Is that the main reason you voted non-tender?
by Jay on Nov 13, 2009 9:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, the Indians could really use the power from the catching position, at least until Santana is ready. And it’s not like he’s a liability behind the plate. The Indians don’t need to shed payroll at this point, so keeping Shoppach another year seems to me like a no-brainer. Now if somebody is willing to give up vaule equal to Shoppach v. 2008, then you trade him, but I don’t think there’s a lot of teams clamoring for catchers.
by Ryan on Nov 12, 2009 7:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My previously stated hope: give Shoppach 80% of the first half starts at C, hope he performs well, turn him and Westbrook into a mini-version of Victor and Lee in July 2010.
by APV on Nov 11, 2009 8:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
If the transition goes from Shoppach straight to Santana, I find the acquisition of Marson more puzzling much like you did at the time of the trade.
by Roger Dorn on Nov 11, 2009 10:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Shoppach returns to ‘08 form, then he can be a viable trading chip at the deadline while Marson can take over the everyday duties if the club doesn’t feel Santana is ready just yet. Because nobody wants to see Toregas or Gim behind the dish every day.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Nov 11, 2009 11:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I want to bottle 2008 Sal Fasano and make him an Indian forever.
by Toxicadam on Nov 11, 2009 11:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Touche. Sal in ’10!
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Nov 12, 2009 12:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Especially if Marson’s ceiling is higher than that of a back-up c…
by stuart dean on Nov 12, 2009 11:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All this Shoppach love. I acknowledge the positional value. But is .249/.333 /.465 good for a defensively mediocre, below-average-armed catcher who shows little acumen in helping a struggling pitching staff?
Is a .333 on-base percentage worth protecting? Worth paying more than minimum for?
by odradek on Nov 12, 2009 1:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Nope. Start Marson and bring up Santana early on in the season. They should only keep Shoppach if they think they can get something for him in a trade, either now in the offseason or during the season.
by Cols714 on Nov 12, 2009 9:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t understand the “throw him away” advocacy. Kelly Shoppach is an asset, not a liability.
by gte619n on Nov 12, 2009 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, this is foolish. If he had no potential to return value in a trade, then I could see it, because his projected production over Marson — for the money — is only a little better than break-even, and it’s a non-contending season. But he does have potential to return value in a trade, so it’s ridiculous to release him.
by Jay on Nov 12, 2009 12:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
we’re talking about catcher here. if brian schnieder can have a job and get paid for it, kelly shoppach has value.
by Brick. on Nov 12, 2009 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bengie Molina is about to get PAID by the Mets. Someone dial up Omar
by Roger Dorn on Nov 12, 2009 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If they want Kelly, maybe they can kill two birds with one stone and replace Putz with a particular back-end-of-the-bullpen option, assuming money is no option.
by The DiaTriber on Nov 12, 2009 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not quite as inspiring as when talking about failure, but i like it. add this to the t-shirt idea pile.
“Money is not an option”
by Brick. on Nov 12, 2009 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A 98 OPS+ out of a catcher, yes. I’d keep that.
Oh and why are we judging a player on one year. I’d say rolling three years is a better way to judge his performance going forward (especially considering he’s at the plateau point age wise), which for Shoppach is a .803 OPS and a 112 OPS+, you know for that acknowledged positional value.
by hans on Nov 12, 2009 9:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You judge a player on one year so that it looks better for your argument. Then you compare him to first basemen and outfielders to show that he isn’t that good of a hitter.
by Roger Dorn on Nov 12, 2009 11:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
defensively mediocre, below-average-armed catcher who shows little acumen in helping a struggling pitching staff
Geez, it’s pretty arbitrary to pin bad pitching on the backup catcher, isn’t it? The numbers don’t offer much to go on. Shoppach looks just a little better than Victor per OPS-against (30 points), and the gap widens if you BIP-normalize. I make nothing of this either way, though. Victor led by 8 points in 2008.
Shoppach’s defense arguably is a bigger problem than his offense, and he needs to pick it back up just as badly. I could be wrong, but my guess is that many teams view him as I do — as a guy with great raw tools who hasn’t quite gotten it done behind the plate recently. Anyway, I agree that it’s a problem.
by Jay on Nov 12, 2009 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s ironic that the Indians best pitcher had Shoppach as a personal catcher.
by Roger Dorn on Nov 13, 2009 8:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
below-average-armed catcher who shows little acumen in helping a struggling pitching staff?
Are you sure you correct in evaluating Shoppach’s ability to help a struggling pitching staff? And more importantly how are you evaluating this?
by hans on Nov 12, 2009 10:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Kelly’s catcher’s ERA was 4.71 (the team ERA for 2009 was 5.07). So he’s better than the rest of the staff (although I could point out he started more Cliff games than other catchers on the staff).
He had 6 passed balls in 81 games. Not a great number.
He’s above average in throwing out runners (23% in 2009, 21% in 2008), but a far cry from where he was in 2007.
His range factor per game (put-outs plus assists per game) is 6.26, below the league average of 6.63. (This could also be a function of a pitching staff that doesn’t strike out many hitters.)
by odradek on Nov 13, 2009 9:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Catcher ERA is completely and utterly useless as a stat. There are way, way too many variables to make CERA even mentionable right now. Didn’t Keith Woolner pretty much finish it off a couple of years back?
by fwembt on Nov 14, 2009 1:36 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Who’s Keith Woolner? Just kidding. All stats are reductionist (other than counting stats), so why get so hung up on cERA? What I saw from watching a lot of games last season was Shoppach not looking good behind the plate. I remember a few passed balls in “high leverage situations.” I don’t remember what it was that caused the fissure between Wedge and Shoppach (who improved in my estimation as a bona fide member of the Wedge doghouse). Maybe Wedge had been riding him about his defense.
by odradek on Nov 14, 2009 10:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because CERA has been proven to be useless. It doesn’t really measure anything because of the vast amount of variables that come into play. It just isn’t a good stat.
by fwembt on Nov 14, 2009 11:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In that sense it’s as useful as ERA On the Weekend.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Nov 14, 2009 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I acknowledged the serious flaw in CERA: If you catch Cliff Lee on a staff of bunglers, you’re going to look better than the rest. My point is that I don’t need CERA to suggest Shoppach has deteriorated defensively.
by odradek on Nov 14, 2009 3:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Then why did you use it?
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Nov 14, 2009 4:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What would you suggest to indicate? Jay cited opposing OPS+.
by odradek on Nov 14, 2009 5:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
… but suggested there was nothing much to make of it.
by Jay on Nov 14, 2009 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, then: If you are asked to provide statistical support for the defensive quality of a catcher (which I am unable to provide because I think most of the defensive indicators are reductionist), what would you offer?
by odradek on Nov 14, 2009 5:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing. There really isn’t a good stat for that yet, sorry.
by fwembt on Nov 14, 2009 7:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Then I would say we have to allow some latitude for observation and anecdotal evidence, no?
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Nov 19, 2009 8:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also! If it’s proven to be worthless, why do people still calculate it? Maybe you should tell them they don’t need to bother.
by odradek on Nov 14, 2009 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“…let them know they don’t need to bother.”
by odradek on Nov 14, 2009 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Same reason people still read the horoscope.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Nov 14, 2009 4:15 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
batting average
win-loss for pitchers
“holds”
….
by Jay on Nov 14, 2009 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Isn’t a hold just an premature save?
Wait 'til next millennium!
by emd2k3 on Nov 15, 2009 8:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but if you blow a hold, you get a blown save.
by Jay on Nov 15, 2009 9:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This needs to be put in writing more often.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Nov 16, 2009 10:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Or a win, if things work out right.
Wait 'til next millennium!
by emd2k3 on Nov 17, 2009 10:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Further proving the pointlessness of the Win stat.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Nov 17, 2009 11:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And the save stat.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Nov 19, 2009 8:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I can make up a horoscope. I can’t make up a CERA.
by odradek on Nov 14, 2009 5:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How? I presume it to be the number of earned runs allowed multiplied by nine divided by innings pitched. If I pulled a number out of my arse and said it was Einar Diaz’s career CERA (2.90), you could look it up and tell me I’m wrong. If I tell you that Mercury is in the house of Uranus, which means you’re going to have a lousy day tomorrow, how could I be refuted?
by odradek on Nov 14, 2009 5:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If I tell you that Mercury is in the house of Uranus, which means you’re going to have a lousy day tomorrow, how could I be refuted?
jaw agape at logic trainwreck
by Voltaire on Nov 14, 2009 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
First of all, maybe that’s just where I like Mercury, and you shouldn’t be so quick to judge.
Second, in either case, you would be refuted by the total failure to establish the relevance of the information to the question at hand.
by Jay on Nov 14, 2009 7:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not the one comparing a calculable number with fortune-telling. One has an empirical basis, and the other doesn’t.
by odradek on Nov 14, 2009 7:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Depends how you define comparably, I’d say.
by odradek on Nov 14, 2009 7:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Or “is.”
Look, neither a horoscope nor CERA tell you anything meaningful about a catcher either going forward or at his current performance level. It’s a garbage stats, a fancy one, but still garbage.
by fwembt on Nov 14, 2009 7:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because I was asked to mention it. This is kind of ridiculous. The point about Shoppach’s defense is ignored while you obsess over idiot stats.
by odradek on Nov 15, 2009 12:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The point about Shoppach’s defense is ignored while you obsess over idiot stats.
Since we’re assigning blame, I’ll point out that you brought them into the conversation.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Nov 15, 2009 12:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The point is that you lose credibility as a judge when you bring these stats into play. It would be like if we were talking about Shoppach at the plate and the first thing you listed was his batting average. When you lead with an idiot stat, then persist in defending it, you stain yourself with it irreparably.
Shoppach’s defense is nearly impossible to quantify with numbers because he is a catcher. There is not one thing that happens that he controls completely. Any evidence against him is going to be, by necessity, anecdotal in nature.
by fwembt on Nov 15, 2009 12:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Here’s what I led with:
But is .249/.333 /.465 good for a defensively mediocre, below-average-armed catcher who shows little acumen in helping a struggling pitching staff?
When questioned as to the source of my critique of his defense, I cited personal observation. Then I went in search of numbers to confirm my personal observation.
I really don’t need to be lectured about defensive stats. I don’t have anything invested in these things. They seem artificial and flawed.
I have been assigned the role of Idiot Stat Defender, which is, again, ridiculous. I don’t believe in batting average or earned run average. A long time ago, I knew why they were flawed.
If you wish to dispute this, you should at least make up a straw man to fit your objections. That’s not what I said, nor is it what I believe.
by odradek on Nov 15, 2009 1:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t need a straw man, this isn’t difficult enough to merit that. You were asked to defend the claim you made about Shoppach and you led back with CERA. If you know it is so awful, why bother? It gives the impression that you have no idea what you are on about. That’s all I’m saying.
by fwembt on Nov 15, 2009 2:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yes. And we are left with only his opinion. Which isn’t worth much in this context.
by hans on Nov 15, 2009 3:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s a little unfair, though, as we also discount the stats.
by Jay on Nov 15, 2009 8:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I appreciate the acknowledgement.
You can discount my opinion, certainly, and the weak stats as well—no one has mentioned the other stats—but I don’t hear anyone refuting what I first stated.
“Well that’s just, like, your opinion, man, because you don’t have the numbers to prove your assertions. Furthermore, such quantification doesn’t exist, so even if what you are saying is true, you can’t provide proof anyway. Heads I win, tails you lose. Quod erat demonstrandum.”
by odradek on Nov 15, 2009 1:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
House of What?
Wait 'til next millennium!
by emd2k3 on Nov 15, 2009 8:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You just don’t know your anus.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Nov 16, 2009 10:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I recall a lot of his bench time coming after he shot his mouth off about the trades.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Nov 14, 2009 1:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t talk about CERA like that.
Finally convinced my dad that Jeter is immensely hatable.
by westbrook on Nov 14, 2009 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t wait until he sheds his “awkward teenager phase” sometime in his 50s.
Wait 'til next millennium!
by emd2k3 on Nov 15, 2009 8:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
hey, finally a fanshot link on lgt mobile. If only I didn’t get “unsupported media: /” error…
by Brick. on Nov 12, 2009 6:55 PM EST via mobile reply actions 0 recs
I’m on the SS Keep Kelly [For Now].
Finally convinced my dad that Jeter is immensely hatable.
by westbrook on Nov 14, 2009 12:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
you better be careful…our entire armada of off-season ships was sunk last year. Let’s Go Tribe: good commentators, bad ship-builders
by APV on Nov 14, 2009 9:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Here’s a cool batting average; .262, which is the major leagues’ batting average from 1876 to present (3,449,082 hits in 13,341,865 at bats).
by odradek on Nov 15, 2009 9:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think you and batting average should get a room.
by Jay on Nov 15, 2009 9:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Better batting average fact: there are two players in MLB history with career averages of .545 with at least 10 PA. They are both named Luis.
by FredOx on Nov 16, 2009 9:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Luis Isaac! < /clecom>
Finally convinced my dad that Jeter is immensely hatable.
by westbrook on Nov 17, 2009 12:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Let's Go Tribe!
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Sweet Baboo
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
