Why Byrnes-for-Cameron Makes Sense?
by Uncle Charlie on Jan 14, 2005 1:49 PM PST
Email
PrintI'm not a big fan of dealing Byrnes, but here's why it makes sense.
It's not about the offense: Byrnes last year: .283/.337/.467. Cameron last year: .231/.311/.479. Cameron had a pretty good second-half last year which probably more accurately reflects his true hitting ability: .248/.322/.567 (SLG a little higher than we should expect, but BA and OBP were about right). Byrnes gets a few more hits, Cameron gets a few more dongs.
It's not about the money: Unless the Mets agree to pick up a significant chunk of Cameron's contract, this trade would cost the A's money. In theory, the deal could be Byrnes and Hatteberg for Cameron and a prospect or two, but I don't think that's happening (esp if the Mets are trying to get Delgado). The Mets won't agree to pay Cameron $5M a year to play for the A's (which would make this deal a wash for us, but which would make little sense if the Mets were trying to clear room for Delgado), so we'd probably be looking at taking on some salary in this deal.
What is this deal about?: It's about our pitching staff. During this offseason, we lost Mark Mulder (2:1 groundball-flyball ratio) and Tim Hudson (2.5:1 GB-FB ratio). Meanwhile, the two guys we kept are Barry Zito (.8:1 GB-FB ratio) and Rich Harden (1.3:1 GB-FB ratio). We also added Dan Haren (1.2:1 GB-FB ratio). I don't have the stats on Meyer or Blanton, but neither strikes me as an extreme groundball pitcher.
In other words, a LOT MORE flyballs will be flying out to our OF next year than last. I love Byrnes energy, but the guy tracks flyballs like he was sensing the position of the ball with sonar. My guess, an OF of Byrnes (LF), Kotsay (CF) and Swisher (RF) costs us 0.20-0.25 runs per game next year vs. an OF of Swisher (LF), Cameron (CF) and Kotsay (RF).
Kotsay used to play RF in Florida, and he's certainly got the arm to play RF (he led the league in OF assists last year). Between Cameron and Kotsay, many of those potential extra-base hits to the gap would end up being long outs in McAfee Network Associates Coliseum of Alameda County in Oakland (is that the new name of the stadium this year?).
78 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Agreed...
Plus Cameron's right handed pop will be a welcomed plus.
by UCD Stomper @ Athletics Nation on Jan 14, 2005 2:07 PM PST reply actions
It may not be about the offense
in your dreams
by kotsbots on Jan 14, 2005 5:00 PM PST up reply actions
Cameron?
The Mariners thought he'd be Ken Griffey III, but it didn't pan out that way.
I like the fact that our A's have relatively few dugout cancers - remember T Long's last year? Or what would Guillen have been like for us in '04?
Hey folks it's not all about the numbers-
intangibles do matter, especially when it comes to someone like Cameron.
No thanks, we should pass.
What has he done
THe Mariners by no means thought he'd be Ken G III. If your saying it didn't pan out that way, check it out. Cameron is still playing, is still one of the best defensive CF's in the game, and is a solid hitter with pop. I know KG was on pace to be one of the greatest hitters of all time. But now he can't stop pulling muscles and such.
We Don't Need a Center Fielder
by silas on Jan 14, 2005 9:50 PM PST up reply actions
Attitude
by OaktownTribesman on Jan 15, 2005 8:33 AM PST up reply actions
Crooked cap
I think guys like Cameron and Sabathia get the rep of being "insolent" for the way they wear their caps. Now, as for myself, I think the crooked-cap look is pretty darn goofy-lookin' (esp. for a fella as large as CC) but I don't interpolate anything about the player's 'tude from it.
You're all forgetting
by Kaybeejay on Jan 14, 2005 2:27 PM PST reply actions
Yes
If we traded for Cameron?
by davebenfremont on Jan 14, 2005 4:27 PM PST up reply actions
I think he meant
by nothinlikethetown on Jan 14, 2005 4:33 PM PST up reply actions
One righty for another
Cameron in '04 vs LHP:
.216/.316/.728
Byrnes in '04 vs LHP:
.344/.406/1.004
That's a pretty stark comparison. I think this team has plenty of guys that'll be able to hit righties, but we're a little short on guys that'll hit lefties consistently.
Plus, I think plopping a guy with an OBP and K rate like Cameron in the middle of our lineup wouldn't be a good idea, especially with his pricetag.
by Dirtbag Pride on Jan 14, 2005 2:33 PM PST reply actions
Note:
K rate?
Cameron averages 151 k's per 162 games played whereas Byrnes averages 87 k's per 162 games played.
I really don't read much into strikeouts. They're the same as popping out or anything else and are far better than hitting a ground ball that can turn into a double play.
Byrnes is 28, Cameron is 32. You can argue that Cameron is entering years of decline while Byrnes may be improving as he's in the middle of his 'prime'.
by Dirtbag Pride on Jan 14, 2005 2:53 PM PST up reply actions
Last year
Okay
However, Cameron has been an everyday player for years while Byrnes has only seen one season of regular playing time, where he responded quite well.
I'm not trying to argue in favor of Byrnes (or against Cameron for that matter). I've never liked much about Eric outside of his attitude and hustle. I think he'd do far better on a team that let him utilize his speed on the basepaths more often.
I'm just wondering whether the offensive drop (mostly against LHP -- which we may struggle against this season) will be made up in the aggregate by the addition of Cameron's glove in the outfield.
by Dirtbag Pride on Jan 14, 2005 3:05 PM PST up reply actions
I think yes
Correct
If we'd have to pay all of Cameron's salary over the next two seasons, I'd be a little wary of doing so...especially if the injury problems from last year carry over.
by Dirtbag Pride on Jan 14, 2005 3:17 PM PST up reply actions
Uhhh
by kotsbots on Jan 14, 2005 5:05 PM PST up reply actions
No no
by Dirtbag Pride on Jan 14, 2005 5:12 PM PST up reply actions
I disagree about K's
Why do you think the A's are looking for and finding hard throwers, they want K's in the late innings.
Part of Bradford's problem last year was that he is a ground ball pitcher and too many of his ground balls went through the infield. Getting the bat on the ball and making contact is far better than any strikeout which is a complete negative. Hits are not always pretty, sometimes they are blooped or bleeders. If hard hit balls were always hits, I think Hatteberg would have hit .370 last year. I think strikeouts are the most negative thing a player can do, it gives the pitcher confidence, deflates your team, and produces nothing.
by china bob on Jan 15, 2005 8:22 PM PST up reply actions
Carry over
- Cameron is going to make $15 million over the next two years, and he is already going to miss at least the first month of the 2005 season while recovering from an injury. As I interpret the reports he will be out through April, which means he'll need an abreviated spring training in the minors before he'll be game ready. It's possible that he won't be ready to contribute in Oakland until late May. Meanwhile Byrnes will most likely be playing ball in the bigs.
- I agree that offensively a trade would be a push... Cameron's power vs Byrnes OBP. But there is an offensive side effect to putting Cameron in CF, namely, you push Kotsay into RF and his offense does not compare as well to other corner outfielders. Defense is the greatest strength of both Kotsay and Cameron, and their offensive contributions are more than adequate to start in CF, but neither one offers up the kind of offensive punch teams want from a corner OF position. Defense has to be secondary consideration to offensive firepower when choosing your left and right fielders.
So having shot down your premise, let me offer a compromise solution. The Mets will, most likely, look to shop Cameron and will do so at a disadvantage. They just signed a $17 million dollar CF and Cameron loses much of his value if he's in an OF corner. The 3 teams that have expressed the most interest in him seem to be Oakland, Chicago and Arizona. The Diamondbacks are also interested in Byrnes to man CF.
The trade that makes the most sense is a NY/AZ deal. The Mets are looking for bullpen help and the D'backs are willing to give up Valverde for Byrnes, so offering him up for Cameron wouldn't be that big of a deal. The primary thing holding Arizona back from this deal is Cameron's injury. They need someone ready to go on Opening Day and that is not Cameron.
Background established.
So here's the compromise solution. Trade Byrnes to AZ for Valverde and a prospect. Who the prospect is doesn't matter right now and obviously Valverde has to be healthy. If healthy Valverde gives the A's an inexpensive option to close. Trade Dotel to the Mets for Cameron and maybe a little cash in 2006. (This might also be an opportunity to move Hatty as well, but that is of secondary importance.) Acquiring Dotel shores up the Met's bullpen... let them figure out if they want Looper or Dotel to close. Valverde becomes a low-cost insurance policy to keep the 9th warm until the A's decide to give Street his shot.
What this 3-way trade does best is make all the money work out even. Byrnes/Dotel was going to cost Oakland $6-7 million in 2005, roughly the cost of Cameron's contract. Oakland has the depth (hopefully) with Thomas and Kielty to cover LF until Cameron is ready to get on the field. Insurance will re-imburse the A's Cameron's wages for as long as he's down. If the Thomas/Kielty platoon struggles than the A's have an in-house replacement ready in June. By the same token if Swisher struggles the A's would be able to send him back down. If everyone plays great than Beane will have extra bargaining chips to trade.
Two things
2.If you are saying Camerons production is not good relative to a corner outfield position, why would you give a counter-proposal still acquiring him?
Why?
I'm operating on the old improv standard of not saying "no." Cameron vs. Byrnes offensively could go either way. Neither puts up the kind of offensive numbers you'd ideally want from your corner OF. Defensively it's no contest. Therefore the question becomes money. If you could get both players for the same price than who would you choose?
I included Dotel into the equation because there is no realistic way to make a Byrnes/Cameron trade work. The Mets want to trade Cameron so they can free up money to go after Delgado. They are not going to want to pay Oakland $3-4 million this year, but 2006 might be another situation. They don't have any prospects that would interest the A's. Dotel for Cameron works out financially for both teams when you factor in Byrnes going to Arizona for Valverde.
It's very possible that the plan I've suggested would end up no more than a push for Oakland... I'm just trying to figure out how to make any proposed deal work out. I'm not saying "no" to anything today.
And if we actually got Cameron
Money in 2006
A couple of things ...
Also, insurance policies held by the Mets are not part of a potential trade to the A's. We wouldn't collect any insurance, since the injury is preexisting.
Outside the box
What a narrow minded interpretation of what I was saying. Cameron is going to occupy a spot in the line-up and a positional spot in the field unless you're advocating he be the DH... or DH'd for.
Will it be catcher? No.
Infield? Methinks not.
Outfield? By Golly I think we've got it!
Cameron is an excellent defensive outfielder. His offense in comparison to Byrnes will be a push, you said so yourself. Therefore it makes no sense to improve the team's defense but not the offense by paying an additional $5 million dollars in 2005. That is exactly the kind of wasteful spending Beane has avoided during his tenure as Oakland's GM. The man played Jeremy Giambi in LF because he thought it would give him a better offense, do you really think he's going to tie up what's left of his budget on an injured, 32 year old outfielder? Not going to happen. The trade would have to be cost neutral.
Chill man . . .
"But there is an offensive side effect to putting Cameron in CF, namely, you push Kotsay into RF and his offense does not compare as well to other corner outfielders. Defense is the greatest strength of both Kotsay and Cameron, and their offensive contributions are more than adequate to start in CF, but neither one offers up the kind of offensive punch teams want from a corner OF position. Defense has to be secondary consideration to offensive firepower when choosing your left and right fielders."
If you have NO offensive firepower to put into these corner positions in the first place, your argument makes no logical sense. If the argument was Cameron v. Beltran, then maybe it would.
But it is not like moving Kotsay (and his lack of offensive firepower) to RF would create any problems because he would be in the lineup regardless. Hypothetically having Cameron in CF would then compensate for a subpar offensive RF because he provides more power than ordinarily expected for a CF.
The moves cancel each other out.
by Josh @ Athletics Nation on Jan 14, 2005 4:17 PM PST up reply actions
I failed to articulate a key point.
None of the three provide the kind of explosive offense you'd typically want from a corner outfielder. Therefore, with there being little difference between their offense, you'd want to take the best defenders if money wasn't a factor.
Saying that Cameron is a superior offensive contributor in CF does not make up for the fact that his offensive production does not match up well when compared to a corner OF like Manny Ramirez. Switch Kotsay with Cameron and you've got the same situation. Shuffle the deck however you want, but if Manny hits 40 HRs and the A's can expect the same fire power out of Cameron and Kotsay, than whomever is playing CF for Boston gives them an edge offensively because anything he contributes will be more than Oakland sees from their OF duo.
Yes
There aren't many if any legit power corner outfield bats available for 5-6m/yr. Do you have any ideas for one that we could acquire through free agency or trade? If so, we'd probably be better off going after him. If not ...
Manny was an example
Offensive production is the point I'm trying to stress, not power.
Yeah, but . . .
Your seperate arguments, taken together, are illogical.
If (and a big IF) we can afford Cameron, then I would take his defensive abilities (which I think will be very important this season) over Byrnes' defense. I would even take Cameron's offensive pop over Byrnes'. I concede, however, that after Byrnes' successful season last year, he and Cameron are very similar offensively.
The fallacy of your argument, however, rests on the fact that you base it on money (or the A's lack thereof). After that, you compare the offensive holes in the outfield with power that the A's will never be able to afford (Ramirez).
If we can afford Cameron, I think an OF of Thomas/Swisher; Cameron; Kotsay will be better overall.
If you can get over your own arguments that you seem to keep tripping over, do you think the same?
ALSO: I don't think you can say "Offensively Byrnes=Cameron=Kotsay." Cameron/Byrnes are totally different offensive players than Kotsay.
I guarantee that Kotsay's 2004 MLVR (an estimate of the additional number of runs a given player will contribute to a lineup that otherwise consists of average offensive performers) will be substantially higher than both Cameron and Byrnes.
by Josh @ Athletics Nation on Jan 14, 2005 5:00 PM PST up reply actions
Either I'm too subtle or not subtle enough
The A's can afford trading Byrnes for Cameron straight up, no money coming from NY. Beane & Co. have said repeatedly that the payroll will be in the low-60s and they are currently well under that figure even after Durazo's signing.
That said, doing such a trade would use up the rest of Beane's financial flexibility. Using up that flexibility to acquire a better defender at an offensive position is a mistake.
I was trying to make a not so subtle point by talking about Manny. You said that Cameron was a superior offensive contributor for CF and having him there would make up for having a less than superior offensive player (Kotsay) in RF. Ramirez is a superior offensive contributor for LF (or RF don't get caught up in any difference between left and right field please) and his contributions significantly out-weigh those of Cameron's.
I don't think we're going to see Manny or a slugger of his ilk in Oakland anytime soon, unless we develope that player ourselves.
Do I think an outfield of Thomas/Swisher, Cameron and Kotsay would be better than what the A's currently have? Forgetting money and injuries and basing my opinion strictly on talent I would say yes. I have said repeatedly that Cameron would be a defensive upgrade over Byrnes. Factor in the time Cameron is going to miss because of his injury and I'd still say yes to the trade.
But once you factor in the injury and the money I do not think that the proposed outfield is better than what the A's already have. Just because you have the money doesn't mean you need to spend it all at once. I think there is better value to be had in the $5 million the A's will have to spend to get Cameron's defence.
Deadline trade?
by OaktownTribesman on Jan 15, 2005 8:39 AM PST up reply actions
Insurance
Besides, trades happen all the time in baseball, I'm sure there are measures set up with the insurance companies to transfer coverage when a player moves from one team to another. I'm also sure that the premiums cost more than I could afford to pay.
Insurance isn't part of the contract ...
I would think the policy would have to be severed when the player was traded because the old team couldn't commit the new team to paying the premiums.
It would be like if you sold your car ... the person buying it wouldn't keep your insurance policy, they would get a new one.
Insurance
If a player has insurance through his team and gets traded, than by law he is entitled to the exact same coverage with his new team. The pre-existing injury arguement only comes into play when you don't have insurance and are trying to get some. I know, I hurt my knee while with one insurance company and when I moved to an area that did not have the same company my new insurance company could not exclude my pre-existing injury because there had never been a gap in coverage.
Even then you can usually get insurance over whatever body part is a worry, you just have to pay an extremely high premium to do so.
It's not the player's insurance.
The player has a guaranteed contract. He has no need for insurance.
I think it was
Point is a team can get insurance on just about any player, it just costs a lot of money to do so.
power
"Cameron's power vs Byrnes OBP. But there is an offensive side effect to putting Cameron in CF, namely, you push Kotsay into RF and his offense does not compare as well to other corner outfielders. Defense is the greatest strength of both Kotsay and Cameron, and their offensive contributions are more than adequate to start in CF, but neither one offers up the kind of offensive punch teams want from a corner OF position. Defense has to be secondary consideration to offensive firepower when choosing your left and right fielders."
IMHO, Kots would make a fine RF, both defensively and offensively. How does Kots' 103.4 runs created (2nd among AL CF's - behind "i got knocked the fuck out and 50000 smoaklanders laughed at me" johnny D) compare to the leading AL RF's (Ichiro 134, Vlad 133.9, Sheff 117.5, Millar 90.5)?
Did you not read Moneyball? Power is seriously overrated and prohibitively expensive right now, which is why BB began to pursue undervalued OBP in the first place. We must pursue other avenues to winning besides overpaying for power hitting OF's.
by kotsbots on Jan 14, 2005 5:23 PM PST up reply actions
Yes I read Moneyball
All players have strengths and weaknesses. One of Cameron's strengths as a hitter is his power. One of his weaknesses is his ability (or lack thereof) to hit for average. When you add up all of Cameron's strengths and weaknesses you come up with a benchmark of his ability. You then grade that benchmark. Let's give Cameron a "B" for his grade.
Now we do the same for Byrnes, even though he has different strengths and weaknesses offensively. We add it all up and decide he gets a "B" as well.
Two seperate players with different skill sets grade out the same. That means you don't lose much if you swap them.
Really well put and thought out , Uncle Charlie...
I truly think that without Kotsay last year, and the amazing, rally-killing, disaster averting catches he made in CF, we would have been a lot further back than one game.
Take out our extremist ground ball pitchers, you have even more of a reason to have the best D in the outfield.
I love Byrnes, but would have no problem getting Cameron in a Byrnes deal.
by Josh @ Athletics Nation on Jan 14, 2005 2:47 PM PST reply actions
Grover
Additionally, I think you're two-year plan has merits (I think Valverde will be good to go by 2006, although I'm a little skeptical about his health this year). However, a lot can change between now (Jan. 2005) and then (Jan. 2006). While Billy Beane may want to deal Byrnes for Valverde now, and then deal Dotel for Cameron in 2006, who knows what happens between now and then? If you had told me before last season that we'd deal Mulder for Haren, Calero and Barton, I'd have kicked you in the nuts. Now, I actually like the deal. Right now, we may like the idea of this future deal that you've set up, but in a year it may look good or terrible (depending on how things play out over the next ten months).
i love the line
Cameron's defensive slip
The idea just doesn't flip my pancakes
i responded to this post over on...
i just don't like either trade valverde or cameron. if this is all beane can get for byrnes- and THIS KILLS ME TO EVEN WRITE- then he ought to keep byrnes.
i understand houston wants a cf. has houston watched byrnes play defense? if not, billy give 'em call and don't forget to lie.
Payroll Implications
From an offensive perspective, I think it's basically a wash (although I agree with Ohad that we have a lot of OBP guys but not a lot of guys to drive them in, in which case maybe I'd say Cameron might help OUR offense a little more).
From a defensive perspective (assuming Cameron's actually healthy), I don't think there's much question that Cameron (at his best) helps us more than Byrnes (at his best). The likelihood of Byrnes being healthy all year is greater (because he's younger), but assuming Cameron is healthy come April 1 (a big assumption), I think Cameron helps us out more defensively.
From a clubhouse perspective, I think it would hurt us to lose Byrnes. Is Cameron a cancer? I have no idea. What I do know is that the other guys on the A's seem to like Byrnes and they certainly respect him for treating himself like a ragdoll in the outfield. The guy plays LF like a strong safety, and that is definitely something that gets the team going every day. That said -- if the team saw Cameron gliding under a line drive to the gap to save an extra base hit, that'd probably get them going too.
The problem is payroll. Cameron at $14M over the next two years vs. Byrnes at $2M next year (and maybe $3M the following year). Given the $9M payroll difference over the next two years, I'd probably rather have Byrnes. But, for some amount of cash, this deal would be worth it to us (meaning, we'd get the upside of Cameron but keep the flexibility in payroll). What amount of cash is that? I'm not sure. I don't have the payroll numbers on me, but my initial thought was that if we got $6M over two years from the Metropolitans, this deal would be worth it. Whether Minaya will give up that kind of cash money is another question.
That'd be generous
Byrnes will get about 1.5 and 2.5
That's 14 and 4 total. If NYM give us 6, they're paying 10m for 2 years of Byrnes, while we'd be paying 8m for two years of Cameron ... not too likely.
Devo
Billy Beane could sell white gloves to the manager of a ketchup plant, but I don't think he can sell Omar Minaya on the idea of paying us this much money to make this deal happen. And, as much as I think Cameron might be a good fit for this A's team, I don't want to use up all of the payroll flexibility that we've created in order to bring in Cameron.
The only ways I can see this working are: (i) Minaya looks at his options and decides that Byrnes at $9-10M over two years is better than Cameron at $14M over two years (possible); (ii) the Mets can somehow agree to pay the A's over the span of three years (maybe $2M in each year from 2005-2007). I'm not sure whether that payment structure is allowed under the rules...
Minaya
by Dirtbag Pride on Jan 14, 2005 4:21 PM PST up reply actions
Grover
I don't think the trade has to be cost-neutral (as I said above, I think Cameron in the outfield saves us a significant amount of runs over the course of the season -- somewhere around .20-.25 a game -- and therefore getting him would justify a slight payroll bump), but I would NOT take on an extra $10M over the next two years to get Cameron. That would not be worth it. That's why I think Beane would need somewhere between $4-6M from the Mets to get this deal done.
Unfortunately, as you said, the Mets reason for doing this deal (other than Cameron's alleged demand to be traded) is to clear payroll room to sign Del-gad-it. If they're trying to clear payroll room, they're certainly going to be less inclined to offer us dough along with Cameron.
Keep Kotsay Happy
good point
I dont think they'll do it
by kotsbots on Jan 14, 2005 5:45 PM PST reply actions
yikes!
Salaries kill this deal.
I see our 3 outfielders as pluses at thier positions. I see Charles Thomas as a young "corners only" Cameron and he earns MLB minimum salary.
But then, I also see Kielty as an intertube for tubeless tires!
by A s Eh on Jan 14, 2005 7:16 PM PST up reply actions
Depends on the deal
Byrnes for Cameron straight shouldn't happen.
Byrnes and Dotel for Cameron, Valverde and prospects works financially.
OK! It's just me. I'm pretty satisfied...
But then again, 1 year contracts could be an area of concern;
- Durazo (Johnson)
- Hatteberg (Swisher)
- Ellis (Ginter)
- Kielty (Not a concern)
- Cruz? (Team Option?)
- Rincon (Re-sign again)
- Bradford (jairo? Mabeus?)
- Dotel (Street? Jairo? Yabu-just to stir things up!)
- Byrnes (Trade? Thomas? Watson? Stavinsky? etc.)
- Kotsay (Player or team option for another year? or Cameron?)
by A s Eh on Jan 14, 2005 9:48 PM PST up reply actions
Uh, no
BTW, if we didn't want black players (who are often pretty good players), why would they sign Arthur Rhodes, acquire Charles Thomas, and actively pursue Cameron last off-season?
by Roscoe Parrish on Jan 14, 2005 7:33 PM PST up reply actions
Ridiculous
by Furious George on Jan 14, 2005 7:35 PM PST up reply actions
There's a point here
I'm not saying Beane and his team are racists, I'm not saying they're actively trying to keep black players off of the team; but the A's have been one of the paler teams in the majors the last couple years.
Now, a couple possible explanations for that are: the decreasing popularity of baseball among African-American kids, leading to a smaller pool of candidates at the ML level; and the relatively high valuation and young age of Dominican prospects (who, if I may risk a generalization myself, are often perceived as more "black" than "Latino"), leading Beane to avoid them on Moneyball economic/investment principles.
EricBrynes
Who would play CF in the event Kotsay got hurt.
Getting Cameron who is on the down side of his career and gets way to much for the amount of Stikeouts and low batting average.
We need more playerslike Eric who goes all out everytime he is in the lineup.
His production was good this passed year and seems to produce in the clutch RioRita
by RMS on Jan 14, 2005 7:50 PM PST reply actions
Much Ado about Cameron
by silas on Jan 14, 2005 9:35 PM PST reply actions
The one thing I
comes from the lineup,not the positions"
What does it matter if your 2B hits 45 homers and
your RF hits 8 homers? You win the WS with that,but you go out looking for a RF that hits the
45 homers and the 2B that hits 10? Nah.
by sommers on Jan 14, 2005 9:49 PM PST reply actions
What do we do with Ginter-Ellis-Scutaro?
by A s Eh on Jan 14, 2005 9:58 PM PST up reply actions
nooooooooooo
by GreenNGoldGirl on Jan 15, 2005 9:42 AM PST up reply actions
The other ball girl!
by A s Eh on Jan 15, 2005 11:41 PM PST up reply actions
ESPN Insider
That would be greaaaaaaat.
by Furious George on Jan 15, 2005 12:21 AM PST 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.
