Royals Review: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Uga VII, Requiescat in Pace: A Tribute to a Damn Good 'Dawg

Dayton Moore's Off-Season Trades Have Started To Look Mildly Less Terrible

Thanks to some mild struggles (or non-awesomeness really) from Ramon Ramirez in Boston and a typical Leo Nunez implosion in Florida, Dayton Moore's two major off-season trades don't look quite as terrible as they did around the All-Star Break.

Alright, actually, 90% of this is just ole Leo's struggles, but hey, you wanted more positive analysis.

Let's not be mistaken here: both trades are still failures. They may have been justified gambles, but each failed to pan out. The trades added $9 million to the team payroll, along with directly encouraging additional spending on Kyle Farnsworth, Horacio Ramirez, and Jamey Wright. The bullpen got more expensive and worse, and for their troubles, the Royals got 49 games of Coco Crisp and a player with negative value in Mike Jacobs.

However, we can now consider these trades as only a seven or an eight on the failure scale, instead of a ten.

Star-divide

 

 


G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS AVG OBP SLG
2009 - Mike Jacobs 115 388 38 91 16 1 17 55 35 114 0 0 .235 .301 .412


W-L G GS CG SHO SV BS IP H R ER HR BB K ERA WHIP
2009 - Leo Nunez 4-5 68 0 0 0 21 6 62.1 52 28 28 12 23 56 4.04 1.20


October 31, 2008: Leo Nunez traded to Florida for Mike Jacobs

Team leadership has not shied away from voicing their disappointment regarding Jacobs's performance in 2009, which is a little strange because it has been little different than what he's done throughout his career. He's lost some singles, but his ISO and HR/FB numbers are mostly in line with his career numbers. Mostly, he's just had a non-career year, which has caused him to lose playing time, which has made his counting stats look even worse.

So how has this trade started to look better?

First, the Royals have done an admirable job keeping Jacobs off the field. He's only played 112 innings with a glove this season, which has mitigated some of the damage he does to a baseball team. As such, his WAR total is "only" a terrible -0.3. Yes, that's awful for a guy you voluntarily added to your team. Yes, that's awful awful for a guy you are paying $3.25 million for. Sure. Still, it could have been worse. Imagine if Jacobs was playing first full-time and not posting his highest walk rate since 2006.

Secondly, Leo Nunez, after a nice start, has fallen apart in Florida. In his last 49 games, Nunez has posted a 5.10 ERA, in the National League, in a pitcher's park. As such, Nunez's WAR total for 2009 is -0.7. He's been worse than Jacobs. Of course, Leo's also making the league minimum. Although he's set to be arb-eligible for 2010 (I think) he's still likely to be cheaper than Jacobs will be.

Trade Verdict: Trash in, trash out. After the trade, I speculated that Nunez might have been on the precipice of "getting it" or turning a corner or whatever. That didn't really happen. Nevertheless, Jacobs has been just as lame as we predicted. We're bummed out by the low OBP, the team brass sees lower RBIs and strikeouts (or whatever they look at) but the result has been the same. When a guy's value actually goes up when he plays less, because he's a net negative, well, that's literally the definition of a sub-replacement level player. The trade could have been worse, had Nunez panned out in Florida, but at the moment, it's only a two out of three failure: Jacobs is bad and Jacobs took the roster spot and the salary of a potential player who could have easily been better. Maybe the most horrifying thing remains unchanged, as the Jacobs acquisition continues to reveal how the team's Major League talent evaluation is broken.


G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS AVG OBP SLG
2009 - Coco Crisp 49 180 30 41 8 5 3 14 29 23 13 2 .228 .336 .378


W-L G GS CG SHO SV BS IP H R ER HR BB K ERA WHIP
2009 - Ramon Ramirez 7-4 61 0 0 0 0 3 61.0 51 20 19 6 27 48 2.80 1.28



November 19: Ramon Ramirez traded to Boston for Coco Crisp.

 

Thanks to good defensive numbers and the fact that his season ended shortly after a hot streak, Coco's WAR for the season stands at 1.3. Coco was walking like crazy during his two months as a Royal and there's a reasonable case to be made for the fact that Coco's defensive numbers would have likely declined a touch as the year, that he didn't play, dragged on. Coco's salary for 2009, one of the highest on the team at $5.75 million, wasn't a complete waste, at least from a strict WAR perspective. Nonetheless, the Royals traded for a player with injury history, and that player with injury history got injured. Bad luck!

Meanwhile, Ramon Ramirez, has not quite flourished in Boston. He's been good, and would still be the best non-Soria reliever on the Royals. He's slumped mildly after a hot start, and has posted a 0.5 WAR in a deep Boston bullpen. He's been good, but he hasn't been quite as awesome as he had been in 2008.

Trade Verdict: Considering that Ramirez is making the league minimum in 2009 and arb-eligible for the first time in 2010, he figures to be a cheap bullpen option for a team that doesn't need cheap players for a few more years. Crisp, meanwhile, faces an unclear future with the Royals, who continue to look for other options in centerfield. Instead of solidifying a position of need, Crisp was just another player who was briefly slotted in. For 49 games of Coco Crisp, the Royals gave up four salary-controlled seasons of Ramon Ramirez. The odds are extremely small that the Royals will win this trade, but hey, at least they didn't lose it immediately!

 

The Royals would do well to swallow their pride and part ways with Coco Crisp and Mike Jacobs in 2010, effectively turning the page on these two fall of 2008 trades. If it is any consolation, we can now be pretty sure that the Royals only traded away one cheap & effective reliever, not two. Leo Nunez, we now nominate you for Dayton Moore's 2009 off-season MVP.

2 recs  |  Comment 64 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

This doesn't make me feel any better

Even with Leo’s bad stretch, he has been far better this season than most of KC’s bullpen. And Crisp for Ramirez has been, and remains, a long series of kicks in the crotch.

When you consider the economics of the trades, I still would give them a 9 on the fail scale.

by Black and Gold on Sep 16, 2009 2:23 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I disagree...

a 10 on the fail scale would go to the Mets when we raped them in getting Bannister.

Desperately hoping for Desperate Measures

by averagegatsby on Sep 16, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Or to us when we got Neifi for Dye

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Sep 16, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

yeah...

I would argue that this is more of a 6 on the fail scale. But maybe I have the scale wrong, I would think that the fail scale only works in various levels of fail. So a trade that is even would be a zero.

Desperately hoping for Desperate Measures

by averagegatsby on Sep 16, 2009 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Are you implying...

Bannister trade > Dye trade

I think we got “raped” harder in the Dye trade than the Mets did in the Bannister trade.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 16, 2009 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

yes..b/c dye was actually really good...

not just alternating b/w shitty and averageish

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Sep 16, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think its closer than you think.

The Bannister book hasn’t been closed, I dont think its quite fair to judge it.

Desperately hoping for Desperate Measures

by averagegatsby on Sep 16, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

neifi had a WAR of -3.1 in 2002 for the royals....

thats 3.1 wins worse than burgos….and thats not even taking into account the difference b/w dye and banny

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Sep 16, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

So Burgos had a WAR of Zero?

Is that because he was actually a Zero player or because he didn’t play?

Desperately hoping for Desperate Measures

by averagegatsby on Sep 16, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

just Allard Baird's career

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by devil_fingers on Sep 16, 2009 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Ba-dum-bum

Marriage is a great institution, for those that like being in institutions.

by fats on Sep 16, 2009 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

or Yuno for (anything)

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by devil_fingers on Sep 16, 2009 3:21 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

make that Yuni

Stupid stubby fingers

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by devil_fingers on Sep 16, 2009 3:22 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

+1

Opportunity cost matters. And the fact is, if Leo is on the team, some crappy reliever like Roman Colon or Jamey Wright is not. And if Mike Jacobs is not here, that probably opens the door for someone slightly better like Scott Thorman.*

*-you didn’t actually think they’d give a shot to Kila did you?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Sep 16, 2009 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Just to go one step further,

If those trades had not happened, the Royals would have saved about $8M in salary (Jacobs + Crisp – Nunez – Ramirez) plus another $5M in replacement bullpen signings (Farnsworth + Wright), so the trades not only cost the Royals talent they also cost them $13M this season. That $13M would have bought Adam Dunn with $3M to spare. Not that Dayton Moore would have necessarily used the money wisely signing Dunn, but it is possible.

Those trades were a cascade of bad. And the bad will continue to cascade down upon the Royals for three more seasons as Nunez and Ramirez remain under arbitration control in their new homes while the Royals (hopefully) move on next season without Crisp or Jacobs.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Sep 17, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

i look forward to the 70-win 2010 campaign

thanks d-moore.

where's ross gload to explode the process?

by blue bandwagon on Sep 16, 2009 2:26 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I’m starting to think the other AL Central teams got together and decided if they can lose to us at the end of this season and stop the 100 losses from happening then wed keep GMDM a lot longer.

My stories a lot like yours only more interesting because it involves robots!

by AvilesRotY on Sep 16, 2009 2:27 PM EDT reply actions   1 recs

def works for the tigers

they have lots of room to spare

by royalsreview on Sep 16, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why would they think that?

GMDM was extended well before the recent “hot streak”.

I used to work with an old man that told me. Son, every workplace has a dumbass, if you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.

by Warden11 on Sep 16, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

True

but like BHWick (i think) said, very few GMs live out their contract. They get fired or retire or quit to go somewhere else. I was meaning that the KC fans would get more frustrated from 100 loss season and help lead to an earlier release or firing.

My stories a lot like yours only more interesting because it involves robots!

by AvilesRotY on Sep 16, 2009 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Does WAR factor in reliever leverage situations?

I’m wondering if RamRam’s WAR is depressed because Boston doesn’t have to use him in such high leverage situations, whereas if he were still here in KC, his arm probably would have fallen off from Trey going to him so much in tight spots.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Sep 16, 2009 2:51 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

and since WAR is a counting stat,

his WAR definitely falls off if he doesn’t get the same volume of innings in Boston as he would have in KC.

"The life of a (Royals) fan must be lived forward but can only be understood backward" -- Kierkegaard (more or less)

by benfunke on Sep 16, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

yes it does

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by devil_fingers on Sep 17, 2009 7:11 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

If we could land him in the 4 million price tag I say why not...

but on the other hand, with that awful arm of his (which may be because of the injuries) why not just let Maier do it.

Desperately hoping for Desperate Measures

by averagegatsby on Sep 16, 2009 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Maier has some upside albeit minimal.

Coco is on his way down and probably would end up getting hurt again next year. 4 mill. for a cereal or minimun salary for Mitchy. I go with the always bubbly Mitch Maier. Cheaper, faster, and a number 1 draft choice, for the Royals process.

by grudz96 on Sep 16, 2009 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree...

But the average baseball fan will see Coco as a big improvement, it may get a few more butts in the seats.

Thinking back to the Royals fan question of who is the best former Mariner and the fans picked Bloomquist should say something about the average fan.

Also GMDM probably sees Coco as a FAR better CFer than Mitch, he also thinks Betancourt is good defensively

Desperately hoping for Desperate Measures

by averagegatsby on Sep 16, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

What's more important?

Marginal improvement with Crisp in CF now, or real improvement 2-3 years from now if Mitch actually gets to play next year? The 1 year stop gap is completely pointless if we are building for the future.

Damn Royals, why can’t I quit you?

by AxDxMx on Sep 16, 2009 8:37 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

MITCH at league minimum would probably be the best choice

but you can’t publicly say “We’re only a SP and a CF away” and go with MITCH.

Unless I'm wrong...
My Twitter feed

by Top Ramen on Sep 16, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

We need so much more than a SP and CF that

Mitch wouldn’t even make a difference in our problems.

by grudz96 on Sep 16, 2009 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

good strategy...

he wont make us worse than the worst team in the league…..fuck it….starting CF Mitch Maier

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Sep 16, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

i don't know how crisp would feel about that...

i guess there is no way of knowing…

i am assuming that if we declined his $8 M deal, he’d probably want a multi-year contract in FA

he seems like a big injury risk going forward

by royalsreview on Sep 16, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Two shoulder surgeries do sound a little risky

Dayton Moore is sure to pick up his option.

by AxDxMx on Sep 16, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Two shoulder surgeries do sound a little risky

Not with the Royals training staff.

I used to work with an old man that told me. Son, every workplace has a dumbass, if you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.

by Warden11 on Sep 16, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good point.

I used to work with an old man that told me. Son, every workplace has a dumbass, if you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.

by Warden11 on Sep 16, 2009 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Non-Tender Him And

If no one signs him offer him a one year deal loaded with playing time incentives. Otherwise, Mitch is the man for ’10.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Sep 16, 2009 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I wouldn't even off a ton of incentives,

what do you really miss if Coco signs elsewhere to NOT play? Sign him to a one year deal, if he wants to play for another payday he’d almost have to sign it. Who else is going to let him start in CF almost every day he is healthy?

I used to work with an old man that told me. Son, every workplace has a dumbass, if you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.

by Warden11 on Sep 16, 2009 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Incentives Would

Be in lieu of guaranteed salary. 1/1 + incentives is the most I’d want to go; admittedly, it probably wouldn’t happen, and that’s OK. If he takes the offer and pulls up lame early on, no big loss.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Sep 17, 2009 2:06 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

If you offer incentives, they are the bulk of the contract

I’d give him $2M, plus $500,000 for every 100 PAs. If he gets 600 PAs, he’d make $5M, not bad for a guy coming off 2 shoulder surgeries. I’d prefer not to bring him back though.

by AxDxMx on Sep 17, 2009 2:58 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

This is a conundrum.

The closest comparison I can make to the trades is either getting to first base with your sister or french kissing your grandmother. Leo Nunez was a injury waiting to happen given his body type and throwing motion so nothing lost but Jacobs has been a drain on the team since he first arrived. His salary, plus defense, plus his obp or lack there of, are contributing factors in his high level of suckitude. RamRam, I miss. I think he could have been a 7th and 8th inning anchor getting to Soria. In this season’s record he could have meant as much as 10 wins to the total. Coco, was a good idea but had so many things going against him that he was doomed to fail. His age, contract, and injury record should all have been warning flags for GMDM.

I still give these trades a -9. Dancing Dayton should have seen this coming and at least gone for younger cheaper version of each trade.

by grudz96 on Sep 16, 2009 3:05 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Should be interesting this offseason to see if he keeps the same strategy

of trading young relievers.

Rosa, Marte, and Hughes (among others) could help fix the pen next year without spending much money — but only if they’re not traded to “fix” the C/CF/DH/SS/RF problems

Unless I'm wrong...
My Twitter feed

by Top Ramen on Sep 16, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

what SS problem?

Dan Cortes solved that already

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by devil_fingers on Sep 16, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good thing Aviles might be back...

oh wait he is coming back to knock out Callaspo, who is the much bigger hole at second,

Go Royals!

by BabyBlues on Sep 16, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Marte's not exactly young

Marte is going to be 29 this year, for one

Graduate with a B.S. from the Dayton Moore School of Stats Analysis

by BHWick on Sep 16, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

that was the original offer

but FL was concerned about Rosa’s arm

 Oct. 28, 2008 – 1:51 p.m. ET
The Marlins were reportedly interested in Carlos Rosa from the Royals before talks on a Mike Jacobs deal broke down.

It was reported that a deal fell apart because the Marlins were concerned about the health of the pitcher they would get in return. Rosa, one of the Royals’ top pitching prospects, was shut down twice in the second half due to what was called a strained elbow.

Don't Stop Believing!

by KC Chris on Sep 16, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I give the Coco trade a zero on the trade failure scale.

     Coco was on pace to be a 6 WAR player or so before the injury! He is WAR to salary neutral right now, and we have the inside track in signing him to a much cheaper deal then his option year.

     Nunez to Jacobs is about a 5 on the scale, because of the small salary amouts involved, but it was a really stupid deal.

     The Cortez for Yuni trade was by far the worst deal Dayton made. A 10 on the scale of failure. He traded a potential 3 war or more player for a guarenteed negative WAR player. It will cause multiple disasters in the royals roster due to not being willing to understand how worthless he is, (such as Bert to DH), and will haunt us for years to come.

Go Royals!

by BabyBlues on Sep 16, 2009 5:21 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

"On pace"

means little. Raul Ibanez was “one pace” to be about a 9 WAR player after two months with 3 WAR. At the moment he’s about … 3 WAR. Besides, it’s not as if Crisp has been a really healthy guy.

1.4 WAR for $5.75M is a good deal. 0.5 WAR for $0.4M is better. Add in more seasons of club control… Also, do the Royals have to buy out Crisp for a certain amount on the club option?

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by devil_fingers on Sep 16, 2009 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Don't forget the opportunity cost for the rest of that $5.35M

We could have added $2.5M more a year to Farnsworth’s offer.

Or, a little more seriously, we could have picked up Adam “40 homers” Dunn and skipped Jacobs altogether. If Dunn was here, I would almost guarantee a new HR king at Kauffman. He has to beat Balboni’s 36 right? Pick up Felix Pie to patrol CF for Teahen to the Cubs (or something else like Ramon Ramirez or Leo Nunez, and a minor league arm or bat), and the Royals are in business, building for the future with Pie in the OF and not an injury prone vet.

I guess what’s most frustrating about GMDM is that this stuff is fairly easy to see, yet he pulls the lamest crap imaginable right out of his ass, and tells us it smells like roses, and then gets mad when we say it smells like shit.

by AxDxMx on Sep 16, 2009 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

i hated the trades

because we had to pay for Farns and Wright to replace cheap options.

Have your near zero WAR be cheap, not expensive. Then pay for your high WAR players. Can you imagine if we had another 20 million dollars (not having Guillen, Coco, Wright, Farns)

Am I the only one who thinks WAR is out of whack for relievers. Seems like they win or lose games in high leverage situations all the time, but in terms of innings compared with total innings played they would have a low WAR value. I know statistically the first and last innings are the same, but seems like it should be something different

For example the average late reliever and closer is actually an above average pitcher, so relatively an average pitcher who is pitching as a late inning guy is well below average. We need to compare our starters/key players against the other teams starters/key players, not against the average defensive replacement/mop up guy.

At least Wally Joyner's not on the team....

by tcon125 on Sep 16, 2009 10:13 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Some extra items to consider ...

Nice comparison Will. Some additional factors came to mind as I looked up the stats for Leo;

Florida ‘09 vs Royals ’08; more innings (62 vs 48, & they’re not finished yet), plus closer vs setup man (way more pressure).

Also, the Fish took an equal chance in regard to injury as we did for Coco, they just got lucky, we didn’t. I know they weren’t traded for each other, but it’s still a valid factor when you compare the two trades together.

by doctordave77 on Sep 16, 2009 11:40 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

But the Marlins could take the risk

Because all they were giving up was an expensive piece of junk. If Leo blew out his elbow in ST, they’d have shrugged their shoulders and still been happy to offload Jacobs salary.

Whereas we gave up a cheap, very effective player in return for an injury risk. And in doing so, made it necessary to go out and sign crappy expensive players to complement the expensive injury risk we traded the cheap effective player for.

I don’t really think there is a comparison.

by kcbottom9th on Sep 17, 2009 7:19 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not sure I buy the argument that Leo is ineffective

He’d have the second best (or third best, if you count Tejeda) ERA of all relievers, along with the 3rd highest (or 4th, if you count Tejeda) K/9 rate. He was unlucky with the homeruns this year, but that’s really the only major negative.

Even discounting Leo’s effectiveness, we still can’t call these trades anything less than disasters, particularly once you factor in opportunity costs. Having Jacobs’ bat in the lineup meant we didn’t have Kila’s, and more damning, not having Leo on the mound meant we had Yabuta or Bale or HoRam out there instead.

The problem gets compounded with the Ramirez trade. And then when you factor in money and the guys we couldn’t get because of the money tied up in both Crisp and Jacobs, well, then these look even worse. And then you factor in that had we signed Hudson or someone similar it may have precluded trading away two prospects for Betancourt, well, then you realize that this all ended up being an ever increasing Snowball of Suck.

by marbotty on Sep 30, 2009 12:59 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Kansas City Royals.
Start posting about the Royals »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Trust_small
Denny Matthews at Plaza Library
Royalsretro_small
Royals sign P Jorge Campillo
Stash1_small
Kansas City Fails To Pick Up Option On Royals
Royalsretro_small
Royals sign P Brad Thompson
Tu_small
What would be an appropriate haul for Greinke?
Small
Shane Costa and Ryan Shealy Eras Officially End
Royalsreview_small
Predictions: Will Greinke Win the Cy Young?
Small
Saturday in the AFL
Royalsreview_small
Royals Links: DeJesus Rumors, Chunky Moose, Gold Glove Outrage, Pete Rose's Galpal, Bill Simmons, Lech Walesa and Rany's Return
Rollinsliar_small
Similarity Scores through 2009

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Royalsreview_small royalsreview