Lone Star Ball: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Dolphins knock off Rams; get back into playoff race Bar-right-arrows



Value Ranking the Rangers

Each year, Bill Simmons (ESPN) presents a ranked list of whom he considers to be the Top 40 or so players in the NBA.  His ranking is based on what he believes to be the relative trade-value for each player which takes into account factors like performance, salary, length of contract, and age.  I decided to go through the same exercise with the Rangers Top 57 (don’t ask) players.  As noted in the table below, I used a combination of the player’s major league level performance (“Perf” column using a ratio of predicted 2009 performance/performance ceiling), estimated 2009 salary (“Salary” column), and years under club control (“Years” column) to rank the Rangers.  The final column labeled “40” presents the year that I predict the player will be added to the 40-man roster.  I didn’t use the 40-man roster information for the ranking exercise but used it to make a couple of points in the comments section below. 

Regarding the performance metric (labeled “Perf”), the second value (ceiling) is self-explanatory; the first value (actual) is the performance that I would predict for the player if they played in the major leagues in 2009.  The minor league players on the list have relatively low “actual” performance numbers not because they have not performed well in the minors, but because I would not expect them to perform well in the major leagues right now.  I used the “actual” performance numbers to estimate the probability that a player will reach his ceiling.  For instance, Font received a “ceiling” of 10 but wasn’t ranked among the other 10’s due to his “actual” ranking of 1, which reflects the relatively high probability that he will fail to reach his ceiling.  An explanation of what the various performance numbers correspond to is captured in the key at the bottom of the table. 

One other note, the ranking is highly subjective and intended to stimulate discussion.  Hopefully, you will feel compelled to point out problems with the list and explain the rationale for your disagreement.  An exercise that I found to be useful in producing the ranking was to ask, “Would I trade player X for player Y if I were trying to build a team that will contend for the next 3-5 years?” 

Rank    Player (pos)     Years     Salary    Perf      40
  (1)      Hamilton (OF)      4         $1-6M      9/10    2009
  (2)      Kinsler (2B)        4-5         $3M        9/10    2009
  (3)      Davis (1B)             6         $400K     7/10    2009
  (4)      Feliz (SP)              6+        $400K     6/9      2010
  (5)      Holland (SP)        6+        $400K     6/9      2010
  (6)      Andrus (SS)         6+        $400K      6/9     2010
  (7)      Salt... (C)               5          $450K      7/9     2009
  (8)      Ramirez (C)         6          $400K      6/9     2009
  (9)      Smoak (1B)         6+        $400K      5/9     2010
 (10)     Main (SP)             6+        $400K      4/9     2012
 (11)     McCarthy (SP)      3         $600K      7/8     2009
 (12)     Beavan (SP)        6+        $400K      4/9     2012
 (13)     Bradley (DH)        0          $10M        9/9    2009
 (14)     Feldman (SP)      4          $600K      7/7    2009
 (15)     Hurley (SP)           6          $400K      5/7+  2009
 (16)     Teagarden (C)     6          $400K      5/8    2009
 (17)     Borbon (CF)        6+         $400K      5/8    2009
 (18)     Harrison (SP)      6           $400K      5/7    2009
 (19)     Hunter (SP)          6           $400K     5/7     2009
 (20)     Kiker (SP)            6+         $400K      4/8     2011
 (21)     Poveda (SP)        6+         $400K      4/8     2009
 (22)     Beltre (OF)           6+         $400K      2/9     2012
 (23)     Font (SP)              6+         $400K      1/9    2012
 (24)     Madrigal (RP)      6           $400K      5/8     2009
 (25)     Young (SS)          5           $13M        8/8     2009
 (26)     Padilla (SP)       1-2         $12M        7/8     2009
 (27)     Wilson (RP)        3           $1M           6/8     2009
 (28)     Francisco (RP)   2           $1.25M     6/8     2009
 (29)     Laird (C)              2           $2.5M        7/7     2009
 (30)     Boscan (SP)      6+          $400K       3/8     2012
 (31)     Ramirez (SP)     6+          $400K      3/8      2012
 (32)     Perez (SP)          6+          $400K      2/8      2013
 (33)     Murphy (OF)        5            $400K      6/7      2009
 (34)     Boggs (OF)         6            $400K      5/7      2009
 (35)     Duran (2B)          6            $400K      5/7      2009
 (36)     Blalock (1B)        1            $6.2M      6/8      2009
 (37)     Rupe (RP)           4            $400K     5/7      2009
 (38)     Vallejo (2B)         6+          $400K     4/7      2009
 (39)     Ross (SP)           6+          $400K     1/7+    2013
 (40)     Murphy (SP)        6+          $400K     3/7      2012
 (41)     Benoit (RP)          1           $3.5M      6/7      2009
 (42)     Diamond (SP)    6+          $400K     4/7      2009
 (43)     Arias (SS)            5            $400K     4/7      2009
 (44)     Millwood (SP)    1-2          $11M       7/7      2009
 (45)     Cruz (OF)             5            $400K     6/7      2009
 (46)     Byrd (OF)             1             $2.5M      7/7     2009
 (47)     Mayberry (OF)     6+          $400K     4/7      2009
 (48)     Mendoza (SP)     6            $400K     4/6      2009
 (49)     Nippert (SP)        5            $400K     4/7      2009
 (50)     Gabbard (SP)     4             $500K    4/5      2009
 (51)     Mathis (SP)         6            $400K     3/5      2009
 (52)     Murray (RP)         6           $400K      3/4      2009
 (53)  Rheinecker (RP)  4            $400K      3/4      2009
 (54)     Littleton (RP)      5            $400K      3/4      2009
 (55)     Loe (RP)             4            $400K      3/4      2009
 (56)     Metcalf (3B)        5            $400K      4/6      2009
 (57) Catalanotto (DH) 1-2            $4M        5/5      2009

Key
 5  =  back-up position player, middle reliever
 7  =  avg position player, #3-#5 starter, late inning reliever
 9  =  all-star position player, top-of-the-rotation starter
10 =  superstar

I included Milton Bradley with an estimated salary of $10M on the list even though he will not be on the roster at the conclusion of the season.  I did this to get a sense of where he ranks among the players who are under team control in 2009.  I am in the camp that believes that the Rangers will re-sign him.  If that happens, then 43 of the 57 players on the list will need to be on the 40-man roster this winter.  Though you hate to lose major league talent, there are more than two players at the bottom of the list who could be removed without causing me to lose any sleep.

Do the Rangers have the talent to compete for a championship?
Most perennial championship contenders have 2-4 superstar-level players (10’s on this list), several more all-star caliber players (9’s), and then fill out their rosters with average to above average players (7’s and 8’s).  In my opinion, Hamilton, Kinsler, and Davis will be the superstar-caliber players around which the Rangers can build a contender within the next two years.  There are 16 players in AA or higher with ceilings of 8 or 9, plus Justin Smoak who is expected to develop rapidly.  Assuming the minor league and young major league players with these ceilings continue to progress, it is conceivable that by the end of 2010 the Rangers could have a 25-man roster stocked almost completely with players with above-average talent.  That is not to suggest that the Rangers are likely to be World Championship contenders in 2010, but they could very well have the talent necessary to compete for championships once the major league seasoning process has taken effect.

When can we realistically expect this group of players to contend for a World Series title?
2011.  Andrus, Feliz, Holland, Borbon, and Smoak will likely graduate to the majors in 2010.  Assuming all goes well, all five players could make significant contributions to the 2011 club.  By then, McCarthy, Feldman, Hurley, Harrison, and Hunter will hopefully have established themselves as average to above-average starting pitchers and a combination of Hamilton, Kinsler, Davis, Bradley, Young, and Saltalamacchia, Ramirez, or Teagarden should be major contributors to the most feared line-up in baseball.  Also in 2011, Wilson, Madrigal, and Rupe should be anchoring a bullpen that might also feature Francisco, Diamond, Murray, and whatever pitchers on the roster prove to be effective in short bursts.  2011 could also see an influx of pitching talent with the likely promotions of Kiker and Poveda.

Whom should the Rangers trade and when?
In my opinion, there are only four reasons to seek a trade:
(1) You have so much talent on the 40 man roster that you must trade a few of your less valuable players for one talented major league player or one or more prospects that need not be protected on the 40.  In my opinion, this was why Boston did the Gagne for Murphy/Gabbard/Beltre trade.
(2) You need to provide a spot on the major league team for a more talented young player.  Example – Soriano to the Nationals to make way for Kinsler.
(3) Another team is willing to trade to you one or more players that you value more than the player that you are being asked to give up in trade. Example – Texeira/Mahay to the Braves for Andrus, Feliz, et al.
(4) You are one or two pieces away from becoming one of the best teams in the league.
 If you ask me, only #2 and perhaps #3 could apply to the Rangers this off-season.  For #2, the excess of major league-ready catchers necessitates a move with Laird the most likely to go given that the Rangers only control him for two more years.  As for #3, you can never predict when another team will covet one of your players, though if someone starts asking about Catalanotto, Millwood, Byrd, Murphy, or Benoit, I hope that JD listens.

Should the Rangers trade for pitching?
Only if they receive a pitcher whose predicted performance and years of team control meet or exceed the player that you are trading.  In my opinion, the suggestions that one or more of Hamilton, Kinsler, Davis, or Andrus plus Feliz, Holland, Hurley, or Harrison be traded is insane given how few pitchers are likely to be available that have the requisite performance rating and years of team control needed to meet the young talent that the Rangers would be giving up. 

When will management of the 40-man roster become a problem?
As noted above, at least three players on the list will need to be removed from the 40-man roster this winter.  Assuming the Rangers fail to swap a catcher or another player on the 40-man roster for players who are not yet required to be on the roster, then they risk losing some combination of Catalanatto, Metcalf, Loe, Littleton, Rheinecker, Murray, Cruz, and Arias.  I'm okay with that.  Andrus, Smoak, Feliz, and Holland have a realistic shot at being added to the 40-man roster next year.  With only Blalock (if he's still on the team), Byrd, and Millwood (assuming he doesn't reach 180 IP) scheduled to come off the 40, at least two and perhaps three players among what are currently conidered to be the team's top50 players will need to be dropped.  Adding free agent talent in this environment will make the decisions inceasingly difficult.  Given the alternative, I'll gladly accept rooting for a team whose talent pool is so deep that you have to occasionally give up a guy with major league talent.

13 recs | Comment 43 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

well done

you are on a roll

by 1man5stools on Sep 5, 2008 9:29 AM CDT   0 recs

Indeed

Wow, just wow.

I'm sorry my parents never had me sarcamsized.

by rchawk12 on Sep 5, 2008 4:41 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

so I am guessing

you are either a student taking less than 12 hours or independently wealthy and no need to work.. Not that I am complaining, this is awesome, just not sure how you have all this time.

by fds on Sep 5, 2008 9:32 AM CDT   0 recs

My theory is that there are multiple

people using the same Spursdynasty user name. Or he’s had these made for days and just waited to unleash the awesome.

Either way, props.

by FirebatM3 on Sep 5, 2008 9:40 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

i think

Feldman is a bit over-rated there, B-Mac is probably as well. I think both are decent 4th-5th guys right now, and I certainly agree that B-Mac can be a #2 guy, but I don’t think either is a legitimate #3 in a rotation at the moment.

I am also curious as to whether you’re doing this evaluation in terms of value relative to position or just value relative to the average player.

by FirebatM3 on Sep 5, 2008 9:43 AM CDT   0 recs

I also

think that Feldman, being one year removed from being a reliever, has more room to grow. This has been a big learning year for him. I also am not sure if Harrison and Hunter should be ranked the same. Harrison has proven to be able to handle a whole game while Hunter has had problems the 2nd time through the lineup in every start (if he made it a 2nd time through.)

by fds on Sep 5, 2008 10:52 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Agree on Feldman and BMac

If the job is to rank guys in order of a head-to-head value, then both of them should be below Teagarden, especially Feldman. The only reason Tea goes below those two is that Texas has enough catchers and not enough pitchers. But that isn’t the point of the list (I don’t think).

by JBImaknee on Sep 5, 2008 12:10 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Few things

First off great job

I don’t think Saltys performance warrants a 7 or Maxs warrants a 6 for next year. Max only has a handful of at bats under his belt in the MLs so far so if he does make the team out of spring he will basically be a flat rookie.

Main and Beavan I think will be added in 2011. September 2011 but 2011 none the less.

Kiker gets added in 2010

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.

by bigsteve on Sep 5, 2008 9:58 AM CDT   0 recs

Great job

At first glance, Laird strikes me as too low, and Font strikes me as too high. On your performance metric, if Feliz and Holland can’t garner a 10, then i am not sure how Font does.

Of course, I am in the Sickels camp in that I probably factor empirical minor league data over raw tools/projection, mostly because i have never seen most of these kids play.

by clark on Sep 5, 2008 10:34 AM CDT   0 recs

Millwood/Padilla

Despite the age/results, i don’t think there is an exec in baseball who would trade for Padilla before Millwood.

by clark on Sep 5, 2008 10:36 AM CDT   0 recs

Value Rank

So, just perform this same analysis 29 more times and we will know where the Rangers really stand. Kthanksbai.

by FuturePants on Sep 5, 2008 10:46 AM CDT   0 recs

About time

to start your own blog if you can crank out that much content consistently. Post the link, and you’ll get a fairly big readership!

"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky

"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.

"JD is a great GM if you ignore the giving away pitching and handing out horrible contract stuff."-Tricer

by DJCahill on Sep 5, 2008 11:01 AM CDT   0 recs

If trade value is the measuring stick

Maybe I’m not completely understanding the would you trade x for x if you’re trying to build a contending team in the next 3-5 years. If I’m asking, which player has more value if traded today, then:

I have to think both Wilson and Francisco have more pure trade value than Nos. 12-26 on your list. Maybe it depends on the timing of the trade, i.e. deadline vs. offseason.

I sincerely hope Laird has more value than many of the guys listed before him.

Would Beltre really bring more in a trade than, say Murphy, Laird or Boggs? That’s a question, not a statement.

Kudos. Your posts create good discussions.

by robert_d_wilfong on Sep 5, 2008 11:50 AM CDT   0 recs

I'd like to see this for the rest of the AL West as well

Not necessarily from you, but maybe from the other SBNation blogs (its the one division that actually is well represented top to bottom). But you’re assessments are very good for the reason that they are pretty frank – it doesn’t seem like you aren’t blatantly overrating our guys, even if we may disagree on some of them.

Now, the Halos Heavens folks are real homers and would give all their prospects a max potential of 10, the Athletics Nation crowd would just start posting comics halfway through, and the Lookout Landing guys are bitter and probably would make the list consist of only guys the M’s have traded and Felix (who would be undoubtedly a 10/10). So maybe you should go study up on their organizations…

by JBImaknee on Sep 5, 2008 12:17 PM CDT   0 recs

Response to comments

Sorry to post and run this morning.
Thanks for the comments. I’ll try to answer the questions related to the analysis:

The performance numbers are position-specific. For instance, I expect a better OPS from a 1B or COF than a MIF, thus Kinsler’s batting #’s this year are a 10 for 2B but would be a 7 for a 1B. Kinsler received a 9/10 instead of a 10/10 because of his defense.

I slotted Feldman as high as I did because I think at a minimum he is going to be an innings eater for the next four years and his salary is ridiculously low for someone whom you can count on every 5 days.

I did not take into account whether a given player was blocked, thus Teagarden’s rank is not reduced due to the presence of the other three catchers. For me, Teagarden’s glove rates 8-9/10, but his bat is a 5/6 at best. He simply swings and misses too much for me to see him doing anything but sucking the air out of the bottom of a line-up. That’s why I ranked him as low as I did. I agree that Teagarden likely has more trade value right now than several of the players ranked above him, but I believe that is misguided hope/hype. I don’t like trading prospects, but I would be gleeful if JD swapped Teagarden for one of the high ceiling young pitchers that have been bandied about on this site the last few weeks.

The exercise was not aimed at estimating market/trade value; I don’t have any insights into what GM’s think about the value of different player. Rather, my aim was to rank the current Rangers based on whom I expect to make the most significant contributions to a contending team between 2009 and 2015. The guys whom the Rangers will control for the least number of years (Padilla, Millwood, Laird, Wilson, Francisco) were penalized because they have fewer years to impact the team. Guys with big salaries (Young, Millwood, Padilla) were penalized because they limit the Ranger’s capacity to bring in free agents.

Font vs Feliz vs Holland – Clark – You’re right, they should all have the same ceilings. I’ll change Font to a 9.

Regarding estimates of next year’s performace – I think that Salty’s recent hitting has a very real chance of carrying over to next year and if it does, his bat will rate at least an 8 for catchers. I have him listed a 7 due to his defense. If Ramirez plays next year, I think his bat will be at least average for the catcher position and thus rate a 7. The glove will likely be a 5-6 and thus result in a 6 performance. Of course, if Ramirez is forced to move to DH, I would estimate that his bat would rate no more than a 6, perhaps even a 5, at the position.

Padilla vs Millwood – I like Padilla’s arm more than Millwood’s and ranked the players accordingly. Frankly, I fear that Millwood is going to be a drain on the team in 2009 and 2010 while I think that Padilla could anchor a young staff next year.

by spurdynasty on Sep 5, 2008 1:46 PM CDT   0 recs

Thank you sir!

That’s a REALLY interesting read.

I hereby deem you the new Postmaster!

"California is the most liberal state in the union. No joke that place is probably going to slide into the ocean one of these days. California is a wasteland run by liberals"

-Sharky- what a nice guy huh? I guess he doesn't watch any TV shows or movies.. If California goes so goes the entertainment industry. What a nut job!!

by LAMuscleFag on Sep 5, 2008 4:01 PM CDT   0 recs

Postmaster General?

A bunch of midgets with no arms could pitch better than us. -iorange555

by boomer1 on Sep 5, 2008 4:58 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Definitely good work

The only thing I find I must argue with is Franchise Face. He should be down with Cat. I’d actually rate Face dead last. He’s an anchor. A big fat sucky anchor of suck weighing us down as we try to leave the harbor of being sucky and enter the sea of playoff contention. He and Cat are the only two guys we have with negative value, imo.

The 40 Trumps All!!!

by thedirkatron on Sep 5, 2008 4:14 PM CDT   0 recs

What?

The 40 Trumps All!!!

by thedirkatron on Sep 5, 2008 4:36 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

lol

"The question of how we came to be is a philosophical one." - 4HIM

by Chase Irwin on Sep 5, 2008 7:40 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Ugh...

What a dick punch you are.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Sep 6, 2008 1:01 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

what happened to Ab03

and his poster ignoring FireFox tool?

by FirebatM3 on Sep 6, 2008 1:29 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

non-sense

Michael Young needs hits, it’s the only way he has any semblance of value.

by FirebatM3 on Sep 5, 2008 4:49 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

You disagree?

The 40 Trumps All!!!

by thedirkatron on Sep 5, 2008 4:57 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

In a word

And for those who won’t ignite ….

Yes.

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)

by Ed Coffin on Sep 5, 2008 5:35 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

The only way Michael Young has negative value...

Is if his salary prevented us from getting someone else in the future. Not sure I see that as a problem anytime real soon.

by slimshadty12 on Sep 5, 2008 5:51 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills

He’s quickly approaching replacement level offensively, he’s never been good defensively and will only get worse, and he’s about to start making 16mm over the next 5 yrs. and y’all are arguing that he doesn’t have negative value?

WTF?

I’m so lost.

Someone please explain this lunacy to me.

The 40 Trumps All!!!

by thedirkatron on Sep 5, 2008 6:03 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Hmmmm

.286/.337/.412 is near replacement level?

He’s actually been fairly good defensively this year.

I’m not sure how likely that is to continue in the future, but for this year at least, he’s been decent.

R

by Requiem on Sep 5, 2008 6:11 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Perhaps replacement player was too harsh

I just find it impossible to believe someone can look at his offensive trends and the contract he’s signed to and think he has anything but negative value going forward.

What defensive stats are you using to say he’s been fairly good defensively? All defensive stats seem sorta like voodoo to me but I’m interested to see which ones you like as you seem to be smarter than me at mostly everything baseball related (excluding fantasy, of course ;). Cause personally I want to puke in my own shoe whenever I see him try to get to a ball more than 5 or so feet to either side of him.

The 40 Trumps All!!!

by thedirkatron on Sep 5, 2008 6:25 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Young

He’s not at the replacement player level yet, but he clearly has significant negative value.

by Darrell McKown on Sep 5, 2008 11:01 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Like I said...

Take away his contract and pretend it’s only hurting Tom Hicks not the team’s payroll and I can’t see Michael Young having negative value to this team until he’s 36-37 assuming he changes positions before.

His contract could come back to haunt us but I don’t see it anytime in the next few years. Payroll wise we’re just fine.

by slimshadty12 on Sep 6, 2008 12:59 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

But it is hurting the team's payroll situation going forward

and it most definitely will limit us in free agency going forward. You can’t just pretend shit like that. He’s got negative value because of the contract.

The 40 Trumps All!!!

by thedirkatron on Sep 6, 2008 1:07 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Negative value

The only way to value negative value is becauce of a bad contract. Otherwise, you would just cut his butt and his value couldn’t go below zero.

You can’t pretend the contract doesn’t exist. It does. And you can’t pretend it won’t impact this team’s future spending decisions. It will.

by Darrell McKown on Sep 6, 2008 10:14 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Like most things I say,

Michael Young’s contract being a millstone went from being outrageous to commonly accepted wisdom.

You can’t spend 15-25 percent of your payroll on a SS with all the range of a fencepost, who is a 750 OPS guy. By the end of the contract, when he is 260/310/390, and you have to put him in a non-premium defensive position like 3B, DH, or COF, we’ll see how many other grumpy people there are.

Paying Superstar money to non superstars is just absurdly ridiculous. It may have been the second dumbest move made by the franchise in the ’00s after CHP.

"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky

"I just hope enough dumb oversexed over self-esteemed American public educated female liberals (yeah, you know the type) vote for a woman because she has a vagina, to swing some things."- Sharky.

"JD is a great GM if you ignore the giving away pitching and handing out horrible contract stuff."-Tricer

by DJCahill on Sep 6, 2008 5:24 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Tell me how

Michael Young could be the difference between getting CC Sabathia? For example…do you think if we offer him 20 million and he declines Hicks will look back and say, “Damn that Michael Young I could have given CC 30 million!”?

Hicks finally figured out (overpaying on Arod, whiffing on CHoP, passing on Zito) that every player should have a max value. Thus, Michael Young as of now doesn’t have much effect on a 65 million roster. Millwood, Padilla, and Blalock are not far from being off the books anyway.

by slimshadty12 on Sep 6, 2008 1:22 AM CDT   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Texas Rangers.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Img_0175_small
Blake Beavan Interview
Jeterthrow5150361_yankees_v_royals_small
LSB Community Prospect Project: #14
Jeterthrow5150361_yankees_v_royals_small
LSB Community Prospect Project: #13
Small
Rangers vs A's community rankings
Jeterthrow5150361_yankees_v_royals_small
LSB Community Prospect Project: #12

Recent FanPosts

Small
Who would have thought... Few offered Arbitration
Fh030004_small
Rule 5 Previews
Jd_pray_small
Teagarden Untouchable?
Small
Who is your Texas Ranger prospect that is going to shoot up the prospect sheet next season?
Small
Josh's commercial
George-w-bush-picture_small
OT: BCS Rankings
Small
How many Rangers do you see in the Baseball America Top 100?

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Site Meter