Royals reportedly sign Brett Tomko
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 7:47 PM EST
83 comments
Dayton Moore has brought in his veteran pitcher and it is.....drumroll please....Brett Tomko!!!
Who is Brett Tomko?
Brett Tomko was a second round pick by the Reds in 1995. He pitched fairly well in his first few seasons, winning 24 games in his first two years. He was then dealt with Mike Cameron to the Mariners in the Ken Griffey deal. In Seattle, Tomko found injury problems, although he and Gil Meche were part of a 116 win ballclub, with Tomko contributing mostly by sitting on the DL.
Tomko was then dealt to San Diego in a "junk for junk" deal. After one 10-10 4.49 ERA season in San Diego, he was dealt to St. Louis where he won 13 games despite a 5.28 ERA. Despite Tomko being only 30 years old, Giants General Manager Brian Sabean was quite impressed with Tomko, so he signed him to a two year deal. Tomko spent the next few years bouncing around the NL West - from San Fran to LA and back to San Diego. Colorado and Arizona were not interested in his services, so he signed with Kansas City.
Tomko is coming off a 4-12 5.55 ERA season, although he did strike out 105 in 131 innings. In eleven MLB seasons, he is 93-92 with a 4.62 ERA.
ZIPS projects Tomko to have a 4.34 ERA and a 104-49 K-BB ratio in 143 innings, although that was projected in a pitchers park in San Diego, and in the National League.
I think we could reasonably expect an ERA in the realm of 4.70-5.00 from Tomko, which isn't too shabby considering the money he is making ($3 million for one season with incentives pushing it to $4.5 million). He can start or relieve. He can provide veteran presence. He can provide grit.
I'm not so sure I endorse this deal, only because I'd rather see what our young'uns can do, but if we're going to sign a vet, I'd rather it be a low risk guy like Tomko, than a multi-year deal to Bartolo "Show me to the Buffet" Colon.
One last note, Tomko is married to Playboy model Julia Schultz (link is safe for work). So Mrs. Lima has definitely been replaced.
0 recs |
83 comments
Email
Print
Comments
This is the missing piece
Does anyone know how likely it is he makes the rotation? I seem to recall him being in the bullpen recently. We definitely have Meche,
Bannister, Greinke, and then the pu-pu platter to round out the rotation.
by raefzilla on Jan 20, 2008 6:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Tomko's upside
He posted a 5.5 ERA last year with a .282 BAA in the notoriously pitcher-friendly PETCO Park and Dodgers Stadium. At age 35, I think Tomko is toast.
I see Jose Lima, Mark Redman, and Scott Elarton oozing all over this signing. Anything beyond a repeat of his paltry 2007 performance is gravy, in my opinion.
Worst signing of the offseason.
by Royals Nation on Jan 20, 2008 6:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
...and in the NL to boot
That being said, before 2007, Tomko strung together three decent seasons. Given Tomko's age, I don't think that 2007 is necessarily an aberration (I think he is pretty clearly on the decline), he is considerably lower-risk than Bartolo Colon.
by DarthYoshi on Jan 20, 2008 7:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
by bheikoop on Jan 21, 2008 10:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Especially when...
by DarthYoshi on Jan 21, 2008 12:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Statistically...
by bheikoop on Jan 21, 2008 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not too pick nits
Tomko projects to be a bit below average next year, which makes him an OK #4, and a good #5.
I'd still rather have Nunez, Hochevar or Hudson getting the innings as they all have more of a future with the team.
by James Quinn on Jan 21, 2008 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A one year deal
by howserfan on Jan 20, 2008 8:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
$3M
Correct me if I'm wrong, did the Royals not have to get George Brett to pay for part of Gordon's signing bonus as they did not want to fork over an extra million or so?
by bheikoop on Jan 21, 2008 10:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
bh, I think you are missing something here.
The Royals can run a payroll of at least $80M this year and break even or turn a small profit. The Royals have a lot of extra money laying around. I can't think this Tomko signing will prevent any other signing from happening over the next few months due to empty coffers.
by James Quinn on Jan 21, 2008 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
$80M and turn a profit?!?
Wow, I can't imagine that is correct, but if it is, WOW!
by bheikoop on Jan 21, 2008 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In Terms of...
Also, how does this sound. If they make a profit at $80M would they not also make a profit at $77M? So why not save that $3M for 2009? And then, they could have a payroll of $83M and essentially break even over the span of two years.
In my opinion, Moore seems to think he has a chance at winning. Really?
by bheikoop on Jan 21, 2008 3:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I do not speak for all Royals fans,
Saving the money for later is good in concept, but it is a risky proposition for a KC GM.
Regarding the $80M figure, if you go back about a six or seven weeks in the diaries you'll find a long discussion about this figure. The Royals will take in about $60M from cable rights, revenue sharing and MLBAM alone. And they will make more than $20M on their gate, concessions, merchandising and radio network. I do not know how much overall team revenue is but I would not be surprised if it was north of $100M. Glass has been pocketing about $20M in profits for the last several years.
by James Quinn on Jan 21, 2008 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yes your wrong
by doublestix on Jan 21, 2008 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
SI
The fact that he needed to offer shows enough. Lets spend $3M on a garbage starting pitcher but struggle to bring in the face of the franchise...
by bheikoop on Jan 21, 2008 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you.
by TXroyal on Jan 21, 2008 11:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Tomko's "Best"
by bheikoop on Jan 21, 2008 11:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Tomko
by lordbyronk on Jan 20, 2008 7:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Reeks of Allard Baird to be honest
Still, if they really felt they needed to add depth, I don't think its terrible.
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 7:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
An interesting twist on Tomko's signing
I don't really think this is the case--Mahay and Yabuta both strike me as better candidates for closing out games, but at the very least, it provides food for thought.
by DarthYoshi on Jan 20, 2008 7:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Tomko makes Odie Perez
by royalsreview on Jan 20, 2008 7:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
More Projections
Bill James - 4.53
CHONE - 4.66
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 7:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
It adds depth
I haven't been able to draw a true parallel between Moore and Allard Baird thus far in the former's tenure, but I agree with R. Retro that this signing really does reek of Allard Baird.
What is the true best case scenario for Tomko in our rotation? A 4.70-5.00 ERA? For $3MM (possibly another $1.5MM) I would have rather signed nobody. I'll give Moore the benefit of the doubt on pitching (he has shown an ability to coax maximum results out of most pitchers) but I really have a difficult time seeing Tomko performing even average in the A.L.
Quite simply, it's a waste of money, in my opinion.
by Royals Nation on Jan 20, 2008 8:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
combine this with the Gload deal
by royalsreview on Jan 20, 2008 8:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The difference
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 8:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I could see the Tomko closing
by royaldaddy on Jan 20, 2008 8:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
This will have to be installed on the mound . . .
by royalstern05 on Jan 20, 2008 8:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I've been waiting about a decade for this.
I do remember back when he was playing for the M's and we were talking about dumping some vets--like we always did, though there were never any results. Tomko was still a prospect then, and my brother and I really wanted to trade somebody for him. I can't remember who we wanted to trade, but I'm glad we didn't get him then, even though we probably didn't get anyone better in the end.
by BrRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 8:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Meh
by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 9:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
It's all downside....
Relax guys, not every signing has to be the key piece that puts us in the playoffs.
I don't think anyone is advocating for Dayton Moore to sign Vlad Guerrero, Mags Ordonez and John Smoltz.
For $3MM, this is still a highly questionable move, especially when De La Rosa, Hudson, Duckworth, and Davies, each viable #4-5 options at $1MM or less, are being given that opportunity.
This is a much better move than signing Colon.
It's probably a better move than signing a healthy Colon, but Colon, once, could throw 96-99mph. When faced with the choice of a sub-90 throwing Colon, Tomko, or neither....I would definitely choose neither. Then, save the $3MM for something far more important (drafts? next year's possible Free Agent signing? arbritation cases? A "Butler and Gordon lock box"?)
I would have supported a Lieber or Colon signing (if healthy) because the upside of those two, I feel, is still considerably better than that of Tomko. The only redeeming values in this is that a) it's a one-year signing (though expensive for a replacement-value #5 starter), and b) Tomko might, just might be moved to the bullpen, where he could be more effective (or at least less damaging) than in a 5-6 inning role.
Tomko stands little to no chance at being traded at the deadline. And if this shouldn't - or won't - push us into the postseason, shouldn't we be looking to trade a signing such as this?
At first glance, I'd say there's no way Tomko surprasses a 5 ERA this season. If he does, then a thousand props to Moore and McClure. But his upside, at this point, is nonexistent.
by Royals Nation on Jan 20, 2008 9:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No chance?
Then why do all of the projection systems have him at an ERA under 5? I'm not saying they are all right, but if they all have him under 5, then don't you think that there is a decent chance that he does that?
by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 10:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Probably
I think there's a good chance he bounces back and posts a 4.80 ERA or so, but I can certainly understand why others would think he is toast.
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 10:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I never like looking only at one season
by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 10:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 10:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I hear you
2004 108
2005 95
2006 95
2007 80
These are park and league normalized. Above average in 04, a little below average in 05 and 06. Those are all data points which deserve some attention, as well as 07. There's a reason that Dips project him to something like 4.34. Put him in the K and in the AL, that is still a sub-5 ERA (I'm pretty sure).
by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 10:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
but not league competition normalized
by royalsreview on Jan 20, 2008 11:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
$3M
Consider the value of the $3M player on Opening Day? Hes worth $3M, and presumably, crap.
Consider the value of a $3M player at the mid way point? His remaining contract is around $1.5M.
Now, consider the value of $3M at the mid way point? Thats a player that at the beginning of the year was signed to a $6M contract.
Given the choice, if you knew nothing about the two individuals production, would you not assume that the $6M player would outperform the $3M player?
This is not an exact science, but it is something I thought about in depth when the Indians shelled out $5M for Foulke last year. At his best, he was going to be worth $5M But the trade value of being able to take on a player with $5M left on his second half contract would presumably be quite high...
by bheikoop on Jan 21, 2008 10:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Poor signing
by DC Royal on Jan 20, 2008 9:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
What is the downside to this signing?
Who did you want him to sign? Santana isn't available. Lieber was offered more than $3.5M by one or more teams and he took less to play with the Cubs. Not much you can do there. Colon? Please. If he's not healthy enough to make all of his winter league starts and he's not hitting 90 mph, then he's worthless. There weren't a lot of good options here. So Moore spent a little money that doesn't hurt the team's ability to sign FA's next year and he increased the depth of the 4-5 starter pool.
by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 9:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Who did you want him to sign?
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 9:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
WOPR said it best
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 9:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So the downside to signing Tomko
by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 9:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That and the $3 million
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 9:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How does saving $3M this year help the team?
by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 9:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
$3 million
I think the larger concern is that it will take innings away from younger guys we need to evaluate, but you and I will have to agree to disagree on the importance of that.
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 9:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
$3 million
It could have, but I don't think it would have.
Its money that can't be spent on other MLB payroll though.
How would you have rather they spent that $3M? I don't think they turned down better options.
But let's not act like $3 million is nothing.
It is 4.3% of a $70M payroll. It doesn't hurt the team or hurt it's ability to sign players next year and it increases depth.
by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 9:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Please provide a citation to . . .
"And no I don't think the ML payroll affects how much the Royals are going to spend on the draft or international development or anything else."
by royalstern05 on Jan 20, 2008 9:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No citation
by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 9:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Saying that they have different budgets . . .
Regardless, I have a tough time reconciling a signing like this, with the Royals passing on certain draft picks over the years because we know the signing price will be "too high." I completely understand the logic behind the bargaining position and the "slotting" and all those issues, but in the end, we've passed on high quality talent over the years, and then we turned around and threw $3 million at Tomko . . . .
NYRoyal - I applaud and appreciate your belief in the upside to this move. We all need a dose of your optimism. However, we have been burned by moves exactly like this one so many times.
I feel safe in saying that I speak for many on this forum when I say that I'm a little tired of moves like this.
by royalstern05 on Jan 20, 2008 10:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Stuff
Yeah, I don't know. I'm just speculating.
Regardless, I have a tough time reconciling a signing like this, with the Royals passing on certain draft picks over the years because we know the signing price will be "too high."
I agree. But, for better or worse, I think organizations look at the ML payroll and the draft budget differently. I would argue that they should be put together, but they aren't together.
NYRoyal - I applaud and appreciate your belief in the upside to this move. We all need a dose of your optimism. However, we have been burned by moves exactly like this one so many times.
I don't see how this move could burn us. This isn't like signing Redman and Elarton to be the Royals #2 and #3 SP. We were counting on those gusy. We signed them to be difference makers. We signed Tomko to be one of several pitchers competing for the #4-5 rotation spot or the last bullpen spot. The worst case scenario is that he doesn't pitch well and he gets placed on the major league roster by someone like Hudson, DLR, or Davies. I don't see how even the worst case scenario burns us.
I feel safe in saying that I speak for many on this forum when I say that I'm a little tired of moves like this.
Moves like this. What are "moves like this"? Moves where they spend some of the remaining ML budget to add depth to the competition for the last pitching staff spot?
by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 10:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ultimately, we don't really know
by royalsreview on Jan 20, 2008 11:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
in a way, it's worse
But I'd rather blow $3 million on something that's a necessity than on something that's a luxury. I mean, it's somewhat forgivable that Baird went after Redman and Elarton. They weren't ideal guys to sign, but he just needed a warm body. In this case, the majority of the rotation is set, and there are several internal, cheaper candidates that should be able to fill out the back end. The point is, if it's a luxury, you don't need to spend the money at all.
I don't know the exact dollar amounts that Moore offered to guys like Fukudome, Kuroda, or Jones. But if he added $3-5 million/yr to the deal, wouldn't we have had a better chance at signing them?
If I have $35 million to spend in an offseason, I'd rather spend it on:
Two great players
Than on:
One or two good players and bunch of marginal players.
Until we have great players at the majority of our positions and occupying the majority of our rotation, there's no reason to spend millions of dollars on 4th outfielders, backup catchers, or guys that at best might compete for a spot on the 40.
by marbotty on Jan 21, 2008 6:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
let me also just say
My problem is with the overall offseason strategy. I really do think that a couple of big signings are the way to go, rather than a moderately big signing and a bunch of little signings.
I think the 2007 Cubs are a good example of how this strategy can pay off. They signed the premiere offensive talent and one of the top 3 free agent pitchers. As a result, they improved from 66 to 85 wins.
Obviously, those weren't the only factors affecting their improvement -- Derek Lee's return was a big one. But in many ways, we can get a similar bump from improved play from Butler, Gordon, and possibly Teahen. If we just had one more big arm and one more big bat (and perhaps Guillen can fill that role), I think we'd be there.
While some of Moore's moves will certainly help a little, I worry that they weren't nearly enough to get us over .500.
by marbotty on Jan 21, 2008 6:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
NY is correct
No I don't have a link.
Tomko isn't going to change what we spend in the draft or in Latin America. We spend a record amount for the franchise in the draft last year, and were in the top 10 (just like Dayton promised back in December of '06) in spending in Latin America.
by doublestix on Jan 21, 2008 12:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I respectfully disagree
by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 9:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So why do we need Tomko
With these six mediocre pitchers already on the roster, why do we need Tomko?
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 9:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why depth helps
Because when you have some mediocre pitchers, the way to increase the chances that you'll have at least one (or two) that perform at a decent level is to increase the number of mediocre pitchers.
Let's say, for instance, that each of these pitchers has a 20% chance of having an ERA under 4.75. Would you rather have five such pitchers or six? Adding another pitcher with a 20% chance increases the chances that one of them will reach that 4.75 ERA level.
We have Bale, Nunez, DLR, Davies, Hudson and Duckworth. Two of them can be in the rotation. The other three can jockey to be long relievers. If you want to see Davies and DLR in the bullpen, then you should not want Tomko clogging up roster space, because more than likely, he's the long man in the pen.
First, I think you can take Duckworth out of the SP list. I don't think he's a realistic option and has considerably less talent than each of the rest of them. Second, I like that we are increasing depth and options for the above reason. Speaking of options, Davies has an option left and he might benefit best by starting every fifth day in Omaha for a while.
Injuries and poor performances always create openings in both the rotation and the bullpen. Every team ends up giving many starts and many innings to pitchers outside of the orginal 11 or 12 who start the season on the pitching staff. There will be many opportunities for guys like Davies and DLR. And, quite frankly, any of these guys can pitch their way into the major league pitching rotation with or without the Tomko signing.
by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 9:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just out of curiousity
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 9:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Moore moves I haven't liked
Howell for Gathright - hated it at the time. I have a better opinion of it now that Howell has sucked so horribly.
Re-signing Grudz
Gload for Sisco - didn't like it at the time. I thought we got too little for Sisco. I still think we could have gotten more.
This is a minor move that I think helps the team "this much" (holds fingers about an inch apart).
by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 10:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was sure
I went around for a funk for two weeks after this trade muttering to myself
...'we traded the guy who broke Roger Clemens' strikeout record at Texas'...'we traded the guy who broke Roger Clemens' strikeout record at Texas.'
People in line at the bank were looking at me funny.
by howserfan on Jan 21, 2008 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Downside...
Essentially, that gives him about a 300% greater chance at making the rotation then the 5-7 other guys the Royals have. That said, unless he isn't hitting 85mph during Spring Training and doesn't get out of the first in any one of his innings, the Royals are going with him as their #4/5.
Chances are, hes not going to be any better then what the Royals already have...
So the downside, $3M wasted. Worst case scenario is the money is saved, banked and added to the 2009 payroll. In other words, the $3M could have been like one of us putting on a pair of shorts and finding a $20 bill in them. Obviously at the time it didn't send us into economic disarray, but now we have a $20 bonus to spend however we please.
by bheikoop on Jan 21, 2008 10:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
$3 million guaranteed, $1.5 million in incentives
by marbotty on Jan 21, 2008 1:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Incentives
by bheikoop on Jan 21, 2008 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would rather sign Julia Schultz
She clearly has better "stuff".
by u l washington's toothpick on Jan 20, 2008 10:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I still think we should hold out
by cmkeller on Jan 21, 2008 12:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
eh
I think this signing doesn't really hurt the team at all, and might help it a little bit.
I think this makes a trade more possible. There has been lingering talk of the Royals trading Gobble for a while. If Tomko pitches his way into the rotation that might keep Bale in the bullpen, and thus make Gobble expendable.
by James Quinn on Jan 20, 2008 11:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
agreed 100%.
tomko makes someone available for a trade, and this could just be a move preceding a bigger one. like, as JQ suggested, trading gobble for something useful.
but even if nothing else happens, there is very very little downside to this move. he could bounce back and be around league average as a #4 or #5 starter, or he could just be a long man out of the bullpen.
not thrilled by any means, and i could have done without it, but it isnt a "bad" deal for sure.
by rockchalk on Jan 21, 2008 3:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not as bad as some make it out to be
Besides, you always need more pitching than it looks like you will at the beginning of the year. The extra depth may not look like much now, but wait until two or three starters go down in May. Do you want Tomko pitching in KC, or Tyler Lumsden? The answer depends on whether you are trying to win this year. Moore's philosophy is that you don't surrender any season before it begins, and this signing reflects that philosophy. For $3 million and just 1 year, this doesn't hurt us in 2009, and it makes us better this year.
by Melchizedek on Jan 21, 2008 12:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
echoing...
by royalsreview on Jan 21, 2008 1:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Tomko pitched better than his ERA last year
His peripherals have been solid:
2006 6.1 K/9, 2.3 BB/9, 4.64 FIP
2007 7.2 K/9, 3.3 BB/9, 4.52 FIP
He is a below-average but above-replacement-value major league starting pitcher, which is more than de la Rosa, Davies (so far), Hudson, and Duckworth can say. Adding depth to help stabilize the rotation is not a bad idea, as the last two spots are otherwise unsettled and there is more than a remote chance that one of the rotation's top three gets injured and/or fails to repeat his 2007 success.
by Gopherballs on Jan 21, 2008 2:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Good point
I'm not sold on Tomko yet, but I am not as apprehensive about it as I was when it was announced.
by DarthYoshi on Jan 21, 2008 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm just gonna say this...
by PhattStairs on Jan 21, 2008 11:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Who did you want him to sign?
by kcdoc85 on Jan 21, 2008 2:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Garcia is really high-risk
Garcia isn't as high-risk as Bartolo Colon, but there are reasons why most teams are staying away from him. Tomko may not have the same peak as Garcia, but he represents a substantially lower risk.
by DarthYoshi on Jan 21, 2008 2:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Biggest surprise for me is the guaranteed money
Tomko, Hudson, The Rose, Davies, Bale, Nunez, Hochevar, Matt Wright, Nomo, Brian Lawrence,
A deep group for 2 rotation spots and perhaps 2 bullpen slots
Soria, Yabuta, Mahay, Gobble, Peralta and . . .
by daveyork on Jan 21, 2008 4:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
FWIW, the Royals were one of about five
by James Quinn on Jan 21, 2008 5:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
