Kevin Goldstein Q&A: Part 1
by jparks77 on Dec 6, 2008 2:41 AM CST
Email
PrintEsteemed Baseball Prospectus author Kevin Goldstein, who is widely regarded as one of the foremost experts in the field of prospect evaluation, generously devoted some of his valuable time to answering reader-submitted questions pertaining to the Texas Rangers' electric minor league system earlier this week.
Goldstein on Elvis Andrus:
I'm a guy who just isn't an Andrus believer, and there's a reason for that. Offensively, he's a guy without secondary skills. He doesn't work the count very well and he doesn't have any power. He's a very good defensive shortstop, but he's not a crazy great defensive shortstop; he's not a Gold Glove-caliber shortstop, he's a really good shortstop. I feel the guy is going to hit .280 or .290 and steal some bases, but at the same time he's going to draw 30 walks and hit four home runs for you. He's an everyday shortstop that is going to hit 7th for you. That's not an All-Star, that's a regular shortstop. I mean, what has he really done? He's not just going to find it. It's not there to find.
92 comments
|
8 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
With all due respect to Mr. Goldtsein,
smallish shortstops occasionally “find it” in their early to mid-20’s.
Jose Reyes
17 yo (Rk) – 677 OPS
18 yo (A) – 809 OPS
19 yo (A+/AA) – ~780 OPS
20 yo (AAA/ML) – ~730 OPS
21 yo (ML) – 644 OPS
22 yo (ML) – 686 OPS
23 yo (ML) – 841 OPS
24 yo (ML) – 775 OPS
25 yo (ML) – 833 OPS
Edgar Renteria
17 yo (A) – 500 OPS
18 yo (A+) – 599 OPS
19 yo (AA) – 717 OPS
20 yo (AAA/ML) – 757 OPS
21 yo (ML) – ~740 OPS
22 yo (ML) – 667 OPS
23 yo (ML) – 689 OPS
24 yo (ML) – 734 OPS
25 yo (ML) – 769 OPS
Hanley Ramirez
18 yo (rk/A-) – ~940 OPS
19 yo (A) – 730 OPS
20 yo (A+/AA) – ~790 OPS
21 yo (AAA) – 720 OPS
22 yo (ML) – 833 OPS
23 yo (ML) – 948 OPS
24 yo (ML) – 940 OPS
He didn't say smallish shortstops can't find it in their mid-20s
He said Andrus wasn’t going to find it. Player specific.
Personally, I think Andrus is going to be much better than Goldstein suggests. I doubt he ever hits for much power, though.
He did say
Average ML shortstop or something like that. I’ll take that.
by groundingout on Dec 6, 2008 11:58 AM CST up reply actions
Yep
Goldstein just sent me this:
I hope I’m not public enemy no. 1 because of the Andrus stuff. It’s not like I hate the guy — I think he’s an every day SS, just not a star
I think that’s a fair assessment. I’ll take it.
That sounds fair
and pretty close to my own feelings. I think he has the chance to be a bit more, but average SS is a good bet.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
fair enough
I think a thing to remember is that at 19 years old, Andrus has convinced just about every baseball analyst on the planet that he is, at least, a starting caliber ML SS. Seems to be conventional wisdom that he is at least that. Some seem to think that he has proven that he won’t slug much or get on base that well, others (myself, and I think zywica, have been outspoken on this) seem to think that there is room to grow there and that the kid hasn’t proven that he can’t do those things yet. When you look at the MVP caliber SS currently in the league, a couple of them looked real similar to what Andrus looks like at the same age.
Don't believe the hype about sloppy seconds. They ain't bad.
I think this goes back to the stats vs scouting argument
When you look at the MVP caliber SS currently in the league, a couple of them looked real similar to what Andrus looks like at the same age
.
On paper. Not necessarily in their natural skill sets. Let’s take Hanley Ramirez. During his .271/.335/.385 AA season, several pundits started suggesting that he was never going to hit for much power and that his on-base would always be insufficient. But most scouts didn’t agree with that assessment.
From Sickels in ’05:
Although it didn’t show up in the box scores, most scouts still believe in his long-term offensive potential, due to his pure athleticism.
I guess it all depends on who you talk to, but I haven’t been able to find many sources that think Andrus is going to develop into an offensive behemoth like Ramirez. Similar statistical lines, not really similar players. Not that you were directly suggesting as much.
As I’ve mentioned before, I think Andrus is more of a Tony Fernandez type. Of course, I really, really hope he becomes more.
ok
This part made me realize what you are talking about (referring to HanRam):
During his .271/.335/.385 AA season, several pundits started suggesting that he was never going to hit for much power and that his on-base would always be insufficient. But most scouts didn’t agree with that assessment.
At the time Hanley was coming up, as is the case now, I was much more privy to what pundits were saying, with very little to zero access to what the scouts were saying.
I do think that sometimes scouts don’t really project power, until they see power, especially with smallish infielders. As an example, in the 1999 MInor League Scouting Notebook (written by Sickels), had this to say about a 19 year old Jimmy Rollins:
HIs control of the strike zone is adequate and he makes contact, but his bat will never produce much power.
Don't believe the hype about sloppy seconds. They ain't bad.
one more friendly thing
I know that you didn’t insinuate this, but I’m not necessarily implying that Andrus could be the next Hanley Ramirez. My point was more that when Hanley Ramirez was the same age as Andrus, I don’t remember reading anyone project what he actually became either.
But like I said above, I wasn’t hearing from scouts, maybe some of them believed in him like that before the power actually showed up.
Don't believe the hype about sloppy seconds. They ain't bad.
True
It’s definitely not an exact science, and it is not my intention to paint it as one. Human evaluation has its flaws just like statistical evaluation does. As I mentioned to Spurdynasty, I just happen to give more weight to the scouting reports when it comes to the evaluation of minor league players. Basically, I put more stock in the “how” than the “what”, especially with the youngins.
It’s just preference I guess.
Does Goldstein have one of his reports on Hanley from 2004 archived somewhere?
Don't believe the hype about sloppy seconds. They ain't bad.
Not Goldstein
But Callis on Hanley after the ’04 season:
A career .313 hitter, he has quick hands and a short stroke, allowing him to catch up to any fastball. He also excels at pitch recognition, so breaking pitches don’t fool him. Ramirez signed as a switch-hitter but was so advanced from the right side that the Red Sox told him not to bother batting lefthanded. Besides his ability to hit for average, he also has plus raw power that started to show up in games after he reached Double-A. He can drive the ball out to all fields, and his home run totals would be higher if he didn’t focus so much on hitting the ball up the middle, an approach Boston preaches at the lower levels of the minors.
Hanley
My recollection is that there was all along a belief that Hanley could develop power, because of his build, although I doubt anyone thought he’d hit for as much power as he has thusfar.
I also think there was a knock on Hanley about him Kool-Aiding in the minors, which is part of the reason the BoSox were down on him a little and were willing to deal him. It is harder to try to compare stats when one of the guys is half-assing it.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 6, 2008 9:44 PM CST up reply actions
what's higher than public enemy no. 1
Because that is what Goldstein is to me.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
After listening to some of
the Frisco broadcasts, i have to say his estimation of Andrus’ defense is really surprising. The Frisco announcers were constantly marveling at the defensive plays he made every game, getting to balls like no one that had seen before and saving runs each game. I’ve always assumes from everything I’ve read and heard that he had gold glove potential goldstein notwithstanding.
30 BB and 4 HR is an absolute worst case scenario. Is it possible that he will only do that? I suppose, yeah. But how often do we take the very worst case scenario and project that for a guy, especially someone like Goldstein? And I just don’t get his thing with Andrus’ approach. The reason I’ve come around on him is that, in watching him, it’s not that bad, and it has really improved just over the course of the last year. 30 BB is very, very pessimistic.
by Brett Perryman on Dec 6, 2008 6:01 PM CST up reply actions
Goldstein is entitled to his opinion
I appreciate hearing what he has to say and certainly don’t take offense if his assessment differs from mine. To be honest, I think he is correct in projecting Andrus to be good/not great ML shortstop. Given everything that I’ve seen and heard, I expect Andrus to average an OPS of 700-750 and play above average defense as a major league player.
The statement that bothered me is this -
I mean, what has he really done? He’s not just going to find it. It’s not there to find.
In essence, Goldstein is saying that Andrus has never had a high walk-rate nor hit for power and that he never will. My retort is that Andrus is a 20 yo shortstop who has played 1-2 levels above his age at every stop in the minors and it is foolhardy to believe that one can accurately predict how he is going to perform as a major league player. In fact, if Andrus did significantly improve his OBP and/or his SLG, he would not be the first as exemplified by Reyes, Renteria, and Ramirez who, interestingly enough, were relatively small, very athletic, young-for-their league shortstops like Andrus.
As noted in a comment below, I understand what Goldstein is doing with his occasionally bold, non-mainstream statements. In my opinion, the problem with this approach is that Goldstein winds up marketing himself at the expense of providing his audience with a balanced description of the player that he is discussing.
I understand your point
but just because those players you listed fit into a similar box, it doesn’t mean they are all that similar. Power projection has a lot more to do with the actual athleticism involved with executing bat plane, lift, and torque than it has to do with finding similarities between prospects.
We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I think that the statistical analysis you like to use has its place when it comes to prospect evaluation, but as I mentioned on another thread, I tend to put a lot more stock in scouting reports.
Hasn't Kevin heard?
Miles says Andrus is a bust. Which of course all but garuntees Andrus will become infected with meteor rock and start hitting Hamiltonian home runs while playing both shortstop and third base simultaneously. It’s karma. Or something.
;)
"Somewhere out there, between 14-32 BBWAA NL MVP voters are trying to get cheaper winter heating by drilling a hole in the microwave." - Jeff at LoL
Throw out all the stats and expert opinions
"Yeah, like I had a chance there" - Lancaster batter, after striking out against Derek Holland
Gold Glove caliber
obviously Michael Young is a better shortstop because he actually won a gold glove
"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg
Obviously
he means deserving of a GG and not just the kind of player that often gets voted.
I’m surprised at just how adamant he seems that Andrus isn’t for real. Cahill is going to love reading that.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
gold glove
i was mostly joking in my statement, but it is surprising just how convinced he is that andrus will be nothing more than average.
After seeing andrus play several times last season i’m not sure how someone could say that he wont be more than an average shortstop with such confidence.
"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg
IIRC correctly, Goldstein mentioned somewhere that you have to be almost over-the-top in your descriptions of prospects in order to be heard. I suspect that is what we are getting from Goldstein. He came out as being very pro-Feliz and anti-Andrus. He will maintain that because those stances have been heard by the masses.
I'm not surprised reading him
don’t know if I love it tho
The Andrus hype is reminiscent of the Arias hype, though.
Nolan Ryan is the Greatest Pitcher ever, because Google says so.
"BTW I’m officially welching ab03. Yeah I planned too all along, but I figured I’d try to get off the hook with double or nothing first."- Sharky
Why can't the Rangers develop pitching?
I love his answer to this question. It’s on the mark, in my opinion, even though it leaves us without a convenient scapegoat:
Q: A knock on the Rangers has been their inability to convert a prospect (especially a pitching prospect) into a viable contributor to THEIR big league ballclub. What ingredient has been missing from the development of the Rangers’ local talent that prevents them from getting over this crucial hump? Why has it been missing?
Goldstein: That’s a good question, but you’re not going to like my answer. My answer is: nothing. I’ve actually broken out some spreadsheets and tried to figure things out as far as how many players a certain team develops, and tried to see which players didn’t live up to expectations and which players exceeded expectations. If you plot it all out and chart it all out, you end up with a graph that tells you nothing.
I don’t think the answers to the Rangers’ inability to develop pitchers as of late can be found in the tealeaves. It just didn’t happen. They could have done the exact same thing in another time dimension and it all would have worked out. I don’t think there is any blame or anything that they are doing wrong. Things just happen. No group does the “things just happen” law apply to more than young pitching.
Fans and the media have blamed every possible entity, and certainly big mistakes have been made. But the reality is that the Rangers are not significantly better or worse than other teams at developing hitters or pitchers. The steps the club is taking in conditioning are nice and may provide marginal improvement — but have no doubt that the biggest factor in future success is simply having as much talent as possible to overcome the high attrition rates for pitching.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 6, 2008 8:19 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
so why fire Conor?
If things just happen?
Don't believe the hype about sloppy seconds. They ain't bad.
Don't be purposely obtuse.
You know damn well that’s not what I said. Pitching prospects having an extremely high attrition rates does not equal things just happen. You control the parts you can control at the margins. Get lots of talent, get good coaches, bring them along carefully and then cross your fingers.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
even if
he was a good coach, this is a game and business of results, and connor just hadnt been getting them so no matter what you might think about his ability to coach he deserves to get fired.
I should add,though
that even that has an element of luck in it. Connor certainly has success in his past. Not every coach can reach every player. You can’t simply say that Connor sucked and doesn’t know what he’s doing so that was a “development” problem on the personnel end. Maddux may very well be a better pitching coach, but it’s more likely that he may just be able to deliver the same message in a little better way, or at least a different way so that the players respond to it for a while. Some pitching coaches are obviously better than others, but no one in baseball would say Connor doesn’t have knowledge and skills.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
yea
id definitely agree with this. Just so happened that he couldnt translate that into success here, who knows why, i dont think anyone can just put one nail on the head as to why he didnt get it done, it happens alot of times in professional coaching, you see it all the time with NFL coaches. Sometimes a guy is perfect for one team but a relative failure for another, even if they are still regarded as really good coaches. As an orginization, you cant really keep asking why its not working, you have to eventually do something about it, even if he’s not really the heart of the problem.
"Why can't the Rangers develop pitching?"
We just trade away the good ones…
"Sooner or later, prospects kill you, because you hang onto them." - Greggo, 11/22/2005
Right
A big part of the problem has been not in development, but in identifying the right guys to keep.
Something to keep in mind when everyone here is getting impatient about catcher having to split duties instead of just trading away at least 2 of them.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Yeah, the good answer is uncertainty
No one knows if a pitcher or a hitter in the minors is going to continue on to the majors and dominate like they did in the minors. We’re not the only team that has this worry. Yeah, its happen to us more pitcher wise, but so many prospects over the whole league bust every now and then
In Smoak We Trust
Yeah
When did Texas hire Josh Boyd? I wasn’t aware of that.
by Brett Perryman on Dec 6, 2008 8:20 PM CST up reply actions
That is really interesting
Not sure how I missed that.
by Brett Perryman on Dec 6, 2008 8:33 PM CST up reply actions
He's definitely in the brain trust
Was on his way to the GM meetings when I spoke with him earlier. I’d bet that a deal goes down in the next 48 hours.
Also
Just fwiw, I pretty regularly nowadays have guys I know who aren’t Rangers fans but who follow baseball closely ask me things like’who is that Jason Parks guy? he does a good job’.
by Brett Perryman on Dec 6, 2008 8:49 PM CST up reply actions
One of these days we will be able to tell folks
“We knew him when he was just getting started.”
Don't believe the hype about sloppy seconds. They ain't bad.
Wow
That’s really cool. That definitely improved my mood. Barber being out tomorrow has me down. Can Choice give us 20 carries? Can he pick up a blitz?
Worry more about the blitz than the carries
We can win throwing the ball 60 times if we can just pick up the blitz
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
I doubt it
I think we’ll see alot of Witten in the backfield as an extra blocker. Probably means a potential big day for Martellus though
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
Big day coming for Roy
If the Steelers drop an extra safety over the top of TO, Roy should be able to have the middle. 7 catches/100 yards.
Yep
We just have too many weapons. If the OL can give Tony a little time we will score plenty on them.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
Holland
Huge upgrade over Proctor. I think we can hold the line. I think we can win, although I am worried about Choice.
I agree with this
the kid can run, but you really have to be worried about the blitz with steelers, They are crazy good at getting guys free on blitzes
Jason's interviews
It’s like Hindman’s ability to connect and talk to a player, but without the hyperbole. You rock, Jason.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
I don't know how you find the time
The world is your prison bitch…
Nah, noob.
by Brian Thomas on Dec 8, 2008 11:46 AM CST up reply actions
So when you get to the level of the likes of Gammons and Rosenthal
Don’t forget us man…
And hopefully you won’t be senile like Gammons is…
I have no interest in being a journalist.
I don’t have the chops. I want to be AJ Preller. I want to be behind the Latin American curtain. I need to be at the fields watching the players. Writing is not something that suits me.
For anonymity
would you go with the horse mask while scouting LA amateurs?
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Dec 6, 2008 10:10 PM CST up reply actions
I told Jason to secure me a job in baseball once he works his way into pro scouting
And that I’d ruthlessly hunt him if he ever leaves the site.
Well, one of those statements is true.
by Joey Matschulat on Dec 7, 2008 4:10 AM CST up reply actions
You want to expound on that?
I feel a little gauche even asking.
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Dec 6, 2008 10:11 PM CST up reply actions
Gut feeling
based on conversation with others. I haven’t heard anything specific from anyone within the Rangers organization, and even if I did, I wouldn’t be able to disclose that information.
Sorry. I wasn’t my intention to tease. Just a feeling. It’s in the air.
Does it seem like it might even be something high-risk?
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Dec 6, 2008 10:47 PM CST up reply actions
got this off of BA..
Earlier this winter in December, the Rockies hired Alan Matthews as an area scout. Kline and Matthews are the third BA alumni hired as scouts in the last five years, joining Josh Boyd, hired in January 2004 to scout for the Padres. Boyd now works for the Rangers as manager of pro scouting.
Goldstein's take on ranking the catchers
It’s why I don’t have a problem with hanging onto all three a little longer and let them sort themselves out a little. I know that Teagarden profiles as the type of guy people prefer, but it is really hard to say who out of this group is going to be the stud, and there is every chance that you’ve got one stud, one solid workmanlinke guy and one bust in the three.
Agreed, but...
…when you have an organization manned by the baseball brains we have, which includes a number of quality catcher instructors/execs/pro scouts, maybe they think they do have a feel for which ones they want to go forward with. They see these guys every single day, on the field and in the room and in game-planning sessions and on those half-fields in Surprise in February and October where they go through catcher drills upon catcher drills upon catcher drills.
None of us (and nobody in the media) can come even close to having a handle on the book the org has on its own players.
I don’t know which of the three or four are going to be “busts” (or more to the point, less useful to us than the others) — and sure, I have my guesses — but I don’t pretend to know a fraction of what the org knows when it comes to player evaluation. (I wrote a report about three or four years ago on this very subject.)
by Jamey Newberg on Dec 7, 2008 7:35 AM CST up reply actions
Do you get the impression
that these decisions are made in a much more collective intelligence fashion than a few years ago (read: when Showalter was here)? Or maybe I’m asking if the decision is a bit more of a group consensus without such a strong influence from one area. I have great confidence in the people behind Daniels, and I get the impression that he has no ego in these matters.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
They may
but you know that in this business teams misevaluate their own prospects all the time. They obviously have the most information, have the best feel, etc., but I do not think that these guys are immune to making a mistake on this one. Teagarden’s offensive ability revolves too much around an uncertain skill for even professionals to be sure whether he’ll make enough contact to be solid or just passable. His health is a little too dicey to feel completely confident in sending off all viable alternatives. Ramirez is too early on the arch to be sure how much his defense will develop. Maybe Jim Sundberg & co can look at him and recognize whether he can ever get past a certain critical point, but I’m just not sure about that. And Saltalamacchia has so many moving parts, so many areas where he can gain consistency or not, improve or not, be all-star caliber or the level that caused fans to groan last year. There is just so much of a spectrum for what he can still be, I don’t think anyone, even the foremost experts, can be certain. And with Saltalamacchia and Ramirez, there are certainly catching experts in the industry who think that they are worthy of sticking at the position and those who don’t. That the Rangers – even collectively – may feel strongly one way or the other on each of them right now just doesn’t mean that they are infallible in that call.
I know that you have the utmost confidence in what they do, and this group is certainly well respected by a lot of people. But to say that they are incapable of blowing an evaluation on a young player – or that they might be well served by seeing some more of these young players at the highest levels, where so many talented guys do get sorted out, I just don’t buy that. And that’s not a knock on them. These players are right at that point where similar prospects like these three really distinguish themselves.
All of that said, I think we all probably agree that the Rangers view Teagarden as their catcher of the future right now. So my very contention that they hang onto the three of them a little longer just to be sure does suggest a little distrust on my part. But that is born out of the fact that their apparent comfort with him grew immensely while he was clearly hitting over his head last summer in his cameo. Maybe that has just been reporting bias and their opinion of him hasn’t changed much in the last year, but I sure haven’t gotten that impression.
by Brett Perryman on Dec 7, 2008 1:07 PM CST up reply actions
Couldn't Agree More
I was thinking this morning when I saw Jamey’s post about the fact that I think this group is still capable of making mistakes. That being said, I’m much more confident in the overall composition of the organization than I have ever been. However, you can’t be right all the time, and player development and scouting is all about odds as it is. It’s a gamble. With regards to the catching situation, I think we’re going to be second-guessing whatever move comes along for a number of years. It doesn’t look like any of these guys will be complete flame-outs (though it’s still possible), so we might have to grit our teeth and watch one or two of these guys play well with another organization. That’s just how it is. This group running the Rangers now has had so much experience with these guys, but there’s no way of knowing how much Teagarden’s September influenced them other than what we’ve seen in the media, or how much Salty’s disappointing season actually disappointed them. On the whole though, I am pretty confident right moves will be made, though we can’t expect perfection.
"But to say that they are incapable of blowing an evaluation on a young player – or that they might be well served by seeing some more of these young players at the highest levels, where so many talented guys do get sorted out, I just don’t buy that."
Pretty sure I didn’t say they’re incapable of blowing an evaluation.
I’m just saying it’s sort of crazy to suggest that Scott Servais, for example, is missing something about our catchers that one of us has figured out.
by Jamey Newberg on Dec 7, 2008 1:24 PM CST up reply actions
I didn't mean to suggest that you said that
Where I’m going with that is that saying that we should have near complete trust in the Rangers braintrust when it comes to their three young catchers suggests, to me, that they would not be well served by more time to observe them at the major league level. And I think that I can have a lot of trust in their evaluation and still think that they could really use that.
And for my part, I’m not suggesting that Servais is less informed than one of us.
by Brett Perryman on Dec 7, 2008 1:29 PM CST up reply actions
And
…to be clear, I’m not saying hang onto all three no matter what. I’m saying that I don’t think that they are in a position where they need to feel pressure to deal one. If the market isn’t there, go ahead and give yourself more time to be certain you’re making the right call. You’re not risking much. Daniels is asking a lot for Laird, Teagarden and Saltalmamacchia. If he gets his asking price on either Teagarden or Saltalamacchia, I have no problem with dealing one of them. There is just an underlying concern from some here that not dealing one of the three this offseason set the team back and would be a failure.
I do think that things are a little more at a head when it comes to Laird. One of Laird, Saltalamacchia and Teagarden probably does need to be dealt at this point, because of Laird’s status or at least his miles-like opinion of his.
by Brett Perryman on Dec 7, 2008 1:15 PM CST up reply actions
given that
laird seems the most likely of the three to be traded and that it is highly unlikely his value will increase any significant amount, i think there is a bit of an imperative to trade him. of course, taking the first offer without any negotiation would be foolish, but i dont see a problem with sensibly appraising the market for him then working to make the best deal available happen. maybe im missing something with the impact chronology has on demand for players throughout the off-season, but its hard for me to see a reason to hold of on moving laird. if anything, clearing up the 3 million would give us a little bit of shopping money when the free agency period ripens.
by Smoakin in the Boys Room on Dec 7, 2008 7:58 PM CST up reply actions
I agree
I think that if nothing is worked out with the other two, he needs to go one way or the other. If Daniels can’t make that happen, I would agree that he’s mishandled Laird’s situation over the past couple of years as a whole. He has had some value at times.
by Brett Perryman on Dec 7, 2008 8:02 PM CST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
