Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Roster shake-up near

Tiny by BlueMoon on

I saw Billy Beane at Piattis in Danville Sunday.  I asked him how long he would  stick with .220 hitters all over the field.  He said, "not long", and went back to sipping his red wine.

I love the As, but the line-up they throw out there is unwatchable.  Non-hitters at 3rd, 1st, catcher.   Extremely ordinary everywhere else on the field. Crosby is fine as a #8 or #9 -- not #2.  Cust is fine as a #6 or #7m -- not a #3. 

It's time for M. Sweeny to take over at 1st base.  It's time for Barton and Suzuki to do what they have never done -- dominate at Sacramento. 

R. Sweeny looks like a player (Beane described him as a white Andre Eithier).

On top of it all the A's fielding (with Cust in left) , baserunning , and lack of timely hitting has been awful this past week.  Hopefully, inserting Chavez and M. Sweeny in the line-up will make the A's competitive again.

 

 

 

0 recs | Comment 157 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

Barton hit .293/.389/.438 in Sacramento as a 21 year old last season.

He’s got nothing to prove there.

If he needs to be sent down to get the message across that he has to stop trying to hit everything out of the park and go back to spraying line drives all over the field, that’s one thing.

by mikev on May 20, 2008 7:41 AM PDT   0 recs

Not sure

I think he needs to be sent down to give him the message that … OBP is a way to win games.

On second thought, perhaps they could try telling him that, rather than using the Minors as a blunt stick.

by MobiusKlein on May 20, 2008 9:12 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Well, considering that this year is the first time he's had an OBP below .380 as a professional

I’m thinking that he’s down with OBP, and just off to a bad start.

by mikev on May 20, 2008 9:39 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

down with OBP?

yeah, you know me!

"You have to have a catcher or you'll have all passed balls."- Casey Stengel

by Gaijin_Suketto on May 20, 2008 2:18 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I believe that

Andre does have light brown skin. Andre’s dad is white and mom is Mexican. What either one’s “color” is I don’t know . . . just thought I’d share that FWIW.

by oaktownmario on May 20, 2008 9:07 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Who cares?

I’d take a smurf with an 850 OPS right about now. Hell, even a snork.

by jeffro on May 20, 2008 10:10 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I would like to see

the quote about a white Andre Ethier

"The two of them deserve each other. One's a born liar, the other's convicted."

by SwampyD on May 20, 2008 12:44 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

We already have the white Ryan Howard

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 20, 2008 12:51 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

BJ Novak?

I generally bemoan the profusion of Mr Sabermetric Sporks in the Scrabble ranks who don't know the meaning or usage of 50% of the words they use. -monkeyball

by JediLeroy on May 20, 2008 2:02 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah, he plays Ryan Howard on The Office

I generally bemoan the profusion of Mr Sabermetric Sporks in the Scrabble ranks who don't know the meaning or usage of 50% of the words they use. -monkeyball

by JediLeroy on May 21, 2008 10:57 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Beane would probably...

be surprised (and unhappy) that that quote made it even this far, to a widely read team blog…it was likely the wine talking, on a couple levels: one, as pointed out, Ethier is…not really non-white (or is he non-white…the social construct of race is just lovely, isn’t it); two, more importantly than the first…comparing Sweeney’s ability to Andre Ethier’s is pretty optimistic. Oh, and third, given how he seemed to value Ethier at the time of the LA trade, I wonder who Beane would call the white Milton Bradley, since that player would obviously appeal more to him—for a while anyway. Upcoming AN interview question, maybe? Heh…

the city dumps fill
the junkyards fill
the madhouses fill
the hospitals fill
the graveyards fill

nothing else
fills.

by Cutthemullet on May 21, 2008 12:20 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

do we assume that this reported incident

actually took place?

It seems awful convenient to me. And not at all obvious that this was an extended conversation where the “white Ethier” comment would have emerged—is that from another setting? If it did occur, it seems like a brief fan/baseball guy encounter with one question that the baseball guy blows off—not rudely, mind you.

by madmongoose on May 21, 2008 1:28 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I'll let the author of the diary address this...

seeing as I was approximately 3,000 miles away from the restaurant/bar at the time. Why would BlueMoon lie, though? I don’t think this is really a situation where you need to play devil’s advocate—seems straightforward to me. Beane making an off-the-cuff remark that makes its way back here…given his public statements, hearing that he said something like that wouldn’t surprise me one bit. Informal setting, you know….

the city dumps fill
the junkyards fill
the madhouses fill
the hospitals fill
the graveyards fill

nothing else
fills.

by Cutthemullet on May 21, 2008 7:14 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

So you'd be happy with the blue Andre Ethier?

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

--Bilbo Baggins

by kaweahkaweah on May 20, 2008 1:07 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

or...

The underwater breathing Andre Ethier

by jeffro on May 20, 2008 1:11 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The music was bumping at Piatti's

so maybe I misheard Beane. He might have said Ryan Sweeny was a “tight” Andre Eithier?

by BlueMoon on May 20, 2008 9:45 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Snorks

Anyone who makes a Snork reference is alright with me.

by passionately objective on May 20, 2008 2:58 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

+1

President and CEO of the Ryan Sweeney Apologists Consortium

by Joey C. on May 21, 2008 3:05 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The only roster moves I care about:

Buck in right.
CarGon in center.
RSweeney in left.

Barton will come around. It doesn’t do any good to send him down now. He has nothing to gain or prove there. He needs to take his knocks now on the big league team, and he will be better for it (then again, thats what I thought about Buck too). All rookies struggle, just look at Longoria. Chavez will solidify the 3rd base spot when he’s healthy. The catcher position is kind of awkward right now. I think I’d give Bowen a few consecutive starts just to give Suzuki a break to clear his head.

What about Barry?
"Barry who?" Forst said, and I felt like I was in the middle of a knock-knock joke.

by KMoAsFan on May 20, 2008 8:56 AM PDT   0 recs

What about Cust?

If you slide him to DH, what do you do with Thomas and Sweeney?

by mikev on May 20, 2008 9:07 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Cust.

I’m thinking he is pretty expendable. Other than walk he does nothing consistently productive besides play bad defense and strike out. No matter how often he gets on base by walking, you can’t win games with a 3/4 hitter who constantly fails to drive in runs.

What about Barry?
"Barry who?" Forst said, and I felt like I was in the middle of a knock-knock joke.

by KMoAsFan on May 20, 2008 9:31 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

So,

a guy’s talents are not perfectly matching the spot where he’s hitting in the order. You can a. move him in the order, or b. cut him.

Hm. I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that a is probably a slightly more sensible course of action.

Cust should be batting leadoff or 2nd on this team. It has little real power anyway, might as well just line them up in order of OBP.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 20, 2008 10:07 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Cust batting second

I have thought for a long time that Cust should hit in the number two spot. His primary skill is getting on base, why not take full advantage of that? In a sense this could also help defensively also as he would likely get pinch run for earlier in the game by an inning or so on a few occasions.

I find Brown likable, because I am a people person, but I think that he is the most expendable.

"First Zito and now DJ? The Giants are like A's landfil." - a paraphrase of Since72.
Also, Todd Linden has a .231 lifetime average and a 66 career OPS+, chill Linden fans.

by Athletics fan and runner on May 20, 2008 10:30 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

That seems to be one thing that has bitten the A's in the behind. Having Cust

and Frank back to back, they both get on, and you have to pinch run for both in the same inning. If there was a player or 2 between them, you could better plan your PR’s. If you run for cust, when Frank comes up the runner will have either scored or advanced enough that after Frank has hit, you won’t need to run for him, because there are either 2 outs, or you have a rally going anyway.

by theblackpearl on May 20, 2008 10:41 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

true enough

But last night was a pretty rare situation.

You had to pinchrun for Cust as the tying run—and then you had to pinchrun for Thomas—not so much because he was the goahead run—but because at first he could get thrown out at 2nd on a groundball that a faster runner could beat and force the fielder to throw to first. And it was the 8th inning meaning there was almost no chance they’d come up again until extra innings. I am often a critic of the pinch-running tactic, but thought that geren did the right things last night.

But batting them 2nd and 4th does have wisdom.

by madmongoose on May 20, 2008 10:45 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

It has happened several times so far,that I remember, both of them out

in the same inning, then someone else bats later in the game, with disasterous results.

by theblackpearl on May 20, 2008 10:49 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

He's the best offensive player on the team

How the motherfuck is that expendable?

http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/

by thejd44 on May 20, 2008 11:51 AM PDT to parent up   1 recs

The simple answer?

He isn’t the best offensive player on the team.

by jeffro on May 20, 2008 12:49 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Wait...

I thought you meant Emil Brown, now i see you meant Jack Cust. Bully! Carry on, you are correct.

by jeffro on May 20, 2008 12:53 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Wow

It’s so funny how we’re asking for Chavez back. The irony, the irony.

"The two of them deserve each other. One's a born liar, the other's convicted."

by SwampyD on May 20, 2008 12:45 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I suspect the people hoping Chavez comes back

are not the same people that are constantly criticizing him. For instance, I have yet to see an “OMG, Chavez?” post out of vacafan.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 20, 2008 12:48 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

yeah

I shouldn’t have said “we”

"The two of them deserve each other. One's a born liar, the other's convicted."

by SwampyD on May 20, 2008 4:25 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

It's a common phenomenon on blogs

When a player is ascendant, the guys who love him will write a lot and the guys who hate him will keep quiet. When he’s slumping, the guys who hate him will pile on and the guys who love him will pipe down.

So the blog itself appears to be much more fickle in its “opinions” than most of the actual commentors are.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 20, 2008 4:37 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Buck is not hitting yet in AAA

Hard to see him advancing right back into the starting lineup until he does. Good news about Chavy—he actually played 3rd last night. Could he possibly be ready during the next road trip, or will they wait until they return?

As I posted the other day, “Frank Thomas is not the problem”—voila! 2 bombs.

It does make you wonder about the combination of Cust, Brown and Mike Sweeney—partic. if Ryan Sweeney keeps producing and Barton can get out of his rut. I can’t see room for all 3 of those guys much longer—Cust’s huge problem is 13 RBI batting in the middle of the order. Yes, I know that RBI can be hugely dependent on other players, but basically we’ve gone nearly a third of the season and he is not producing with runners on base. And he’s a butcher in the field. Mike Sweeney simply has no place to play if Barton and Thomas are both hitting well—he, not Thomas, may become expendable after the next interleague swing. And in an ideal world Brown does not take PAs away from the likes of RSweeney, Buck and Gonzalez. These four-Brown, MSweeney, Cust and Thomas- simply can’t all be here all year long.

As for Suzuki I’d give him a few weeks more worth of rope. This is not supposed to be a contending year and if TB keeps it up, it probably won’t be as our WC hopes will fade—let the kid play. If it’s 230 or lower with no power and not a lot of walks either by mid-June, well then maybe Landon Powell gets into the equation.

by madmongoose on May 20, 2008 9:16 AM PDT   0 recs

I read your comment and it's an insult...

...to butchers everywhere.

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on May 20, 2008 9:41 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

and, of course, as no one else ever posted ...

No one ever argued that Frank was “the problem.”

We're going to knock balls out of the country's park, for the home team, which is America. @('.')@

by monkeyball on May 20, 2008 9:57 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Oh excuse me.....

The Semantic Squad is at it again.

Blez basically used his perogative as site leader to start a thread questioning whether the A”s should have signed him. Great—I’m all for a debate. The clear implication of his view was that signing Thomas was a “problem”. I and others said that entire thread was basically misguided—that there were a bunch of other problems with the offense, but not Thomas. Thomas is proving the wisdom of our view and spitting in the proverbial face of Blez’ second thoughts every day. So my thread rejoinder title “Frank Thomas is not the Problem” was quite apt, i would say.

by madmongoose on May 20, 2008 10:05 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Blez never intimated that Frank was the problem, it was more of, the way the roster

is/was constructed, was signing Frank the correct move. Even if Frank does continue to hit, is the defensive effect of Cust going to outweigh that, or the offensive ineptitude of the person who plays for Cust in LF.

by theblackpearl on May 20, 2008 10:22 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

you're absolutely full of it

The clear implication of his view was that signing Thomas was a "problem".

Point to me where precisely Blez implied that.

It was a single-topic post. Blez brought up an issue, and opened it up to discussion. Nowhere did he say or even imply that Frank’s presence itself was a problem, or that it was the only shortcoming bedeviling the offense.

It was entirely inapt, I, and anyone who can read above a fourth-grade level, would say.

We're going to knock balls out of the country's park, for the home team, which is America. @('.')@

by monkeyball on May 20, 2008 11:48 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

here's what dictionary.com says

first two definitions of mediocre (adj)—“of only ordinary or moderate quality”; “neither good nor bad”

I’d say that’s Joe Blanton to a “T”. Moderate quality. Neither good nor bad.

by madmongoose on May 20, 2008 12:06 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

well, here goes nothing

In his thread entitled “Was Picking Up Frank Thomas a Mistake?”, Blez said the following:

“the problem (my emphasis) is that he hasn’t been slugging at all for the A’s”

and then “but I’m wondering if Thomas (and here I’m pretty sure Blez meant to type Sweeney) is a better hitter overall at this stage in his career” (He went on to compare Sweeney’s age of 35 to Thomas approaching 40 (a week from now, btw) so I think the context as pretty clear.

And ended in true fan psychology we’re all guilty of “quite frankly, I’m hopinh he makes me look like a fool”.

Yes he talked about Cust and defense and Thomas’s stint in 2006 and his performance last year for the Blue Jays.

But even a 4th grader could divine that the basic meaning of this entire thread was “I’m not sure Thomas can cut it anymore—wouldn’t we have been better off just sticking with Sweeney?” which as I said is perfectly fine. Blez created a debate and Thomas thankfully has answered the question in the other direction ever since.

Satisfied??

by madmongoose on May 20, 2008 12:15 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

uh, no

Nice use of the “search” function.

Try reading for context next.

The quote you use says “the problem is …” which is (a) a common rhetorical trope and not a thesis statement, (b) made in the context of discussing Frank’s potential utility in the lineup.

It’s not asserting that Frank’s is a or the problem with the offense, but that his (at that point) inability to demonstrate bat speed and power was a “problem” with Beane’s (cheap) gamble on him.

That you willfully misread that whole thing as somehow attacking Frank as being “the” problem demonstrates that you’re simply unwilling to actually read the posts of people whose views you’re attacking, and that the only way you can mount an argument is to build a strawman whose views haven’t actually been expressed.

We're going to knock balls out of the country's park, for the home team, which is America. @('.')@

by monkeyball on May 20, 2008 12:33 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I didn't interpret

Blez’ post to insinuate Thomas was a problem…more to stir the discussion of how well the signing fits into the roster construction and direction of the team heading out of Spring Training

"The two of them deserve each other. One's a born liar, the other's convicted."

by SwampyD on May 20, 2008 12:49 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

what am I on trial for??

Murder? manslaughter?

Will you please lighten up? wow—what an overreaction.

Blez questioned the signing—I thought his thread—while provocative—was misguided. saying “Frank Thomas is not the Problem” was my way of taking the question on.

You then said, and I quote: “nowhere did he say or even imply that Frank’s presence itself was a problem”—

so are we now splitting hairs over “presence” or “hitting/slugging”??

I mean can’t you sit back at laugh at yourself—this is utterly ridiculous!!

Blez used the word “problem”“- OK?? As clear as day. He questioned the decision- as clear as day. He questioned Thomas’ abilities at age 40—as clear as day. He opined that Mike Sweeney could very well be the better hitter—as clear as day. he even said, in effect, “I hope rank makes me look like a fool: in the final sentence—making sure that we all realize that the guts of his thread was a knock on Thomas.

Not a personal knock… not an unfair knock.. a performance-based knock.

And then i said, in effect, “look elsewhere, folks.” That was the meaning of me taking Blez’ cue and entitling my thread “Frank Thomas is not the Problem” Nowhere did I say or imply that I believed Blez was saying that Thomas was the only problem with the offense—but since he chose to emphasize Thomas’s presence/absence in the midst of some offensive woes, I think it was eminently fair to come back and use a little license to refute his fundamental point.

And for that you go into some crazy legs all wrapped themselves convuluted logic for what end???

Please—please—lighten up.

by madmongoose on May 20, 2008 12:55 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

you're the one who flew off the handle ...

... and started inventing arguments out of whole cloth and jumping through hoops to justify your own off-base assumptions. I made one off-hand comment.

I’m not defending Blez’ argument - because I disagreed with it. It was a good decision by Beane to grab Thomas for cheap - even if he was totally washed up.

I never even got into the matter of the content of Blez’ argument, and I don’t know why you keep bringing it up. Strike that—I do know why, because you can’t argue my point on its merits without having your ass handed to you.

We're going to knock balls out of the country's park, for the home team, which is America. @('.')@

by monkeyball on May 20, 2008 3:52 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Oh, God

“inventing arguments out of whole cloth”??

“jumping through hoops to justify your own off-base assumptions”??

Mr McEnroe, please: “You cannot be serious”

Blez questioned Thomas on this team and his ability—he used the word problem.

I posted elsewhere “Thomas is not the problem”—hardly an earth-shattering revelation, but an obvious rejoinder to Blez. Is that not allowed!!??

Then when Thomas finally went deep twice—puncturing pretty deeply the Blez position (“frankly, I’m hoping Frank makes a fool out of me” were basically Blez’ final words)— I made a brief reference to that post.

And then you descended from your perch, for whatever reason and making what point I can’t really see. And i simply pointed out that your fundamental claim “Blez never said or implied thomas was a problem” was 100% dead bang wrong—in fact Blez used the dang word—“p r o b l e m”

Out.

by madmongoose on May 20, 2008 6:55 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

indefinite vs definite article

Try looking it up.

We're going to knock balls out of the country's park, for the home team, which is America. @('.')@

by monkeyball on May 21, 2008 10:29 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

try getting off your insufferable high horse

Really—I love your songs. But you’re pretty lame here.

by madmongoose on May 21, 2008 10:36 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Look, monkeyball might be overstating his case

just a bit because you have irritated him, but here is what I see is causing the irritation (and if monkey-man has other problems he can speak for himself, I am just trying put in my own opinion).

Blez, in his FanPost, posed the question “Was Picking Up Frank Thomas a Mistake?”. He then goes on to give some reasons as to why, looking back, this could have been a mistake. He also acknowledges the reasons why one would have supported picking up Frank (he was cheap, A’s needed more power, etc).

Here is the main point. Blez does not assert that picking up Frank was a mistake. He merely poses the question “Was Picking Up Frank Thomas a Mistake?” then lets the AN community discuss it. During that discussion you emphatically stated that “Frank Thomas is not the problem”. A perfectly fine statement. But that statement was not a refutation of anything Blez said, it was merely answering the question he posed with an emphatic “NO”.

You then come back later and make an “I told you so” statement after Frank starts hitting HRs, which is a bit self congratulatory, but fine. But to say it as if it is in opposition to Blez’s Fanpost is just not true, as Blez merely posed the question and never definatively said that Frank was in fact a mistake.

You like to quote the way Blez ended his Fanpost “I’m hoping he (Thomas) makes me look like a fool” as proof that Blez was saying that the Thomas signing was a mistake. But all Blez is saying here is that he hopes Thomas makes him look foolish for even posing the question—not that he is saying Thomas was actually a mistake.

Most of the AN regualrs do not seem to get upset at anyone just for disagreeing with Blez. However, if you misrepresent what he (or anyone) actually said then you will see something along the lines of monkeyball’s verbal barrage.

Just my 2 cents (which might have gone up to 2 bucks as I kept typing)

by AsFanInLA on May 21, 2008 12:07 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

well, It's a Rashomon thing

I am pretty sure that Blez was saying something much closer to my interpretation than yours. He was arguing fairly forcefully that a) Sweeney is probably the better hitter given the age disparity and b) that Thomas’s skills may very well have eroded since 2006—again, not to beat the darn dead horse—he used the word “problem” to describe Thomas’ lack of power/slugging. And I don’t think any of us use the term “fool” as a self-description for deigning to ask a question—but of we go out on a limb and question someone’s ability—an entirely different thing—and then they prove us wrong, “fool” might clearly apply.

And I credited him for being provocative on numerous occasions. I in no way was personally attacking him, which is why the Monkeyball overreaction struck me as strange and utterly unnecessary. And when I have that reaction you can bet I’ll fight it out.

by madmongoose on May 21, 2008 12:16 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

basically, you blew it

You had your chance to say, “Yeah, Blez didn’t say what I imputed to him, and I was trying to be provocative.”

You chose to walk down the garden path.

We're going to knock balls out of the country's park, for the home team, which is America. @('.')@

by monkeyball on May 20, 2008 3:58 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

There is a direct correlation

between the number of monkeyball posts and how many times mountain dew comes out my nose on to the keyboard.

You don't win friends with salad.

by tresselfan on May 20, 2008 4:01 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

except for simian poetry

You don't win friends with salad.

by tresselfan on May 20, 2008 4:02 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

You're not going to let that Mountain Dew go to waste, are you?

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

--Bilbo Baggins

by kaweahkaweah on May 20, 2008 4:06 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

someone

should sell a monkeyball keyboard splashguard

You don't win friends with salad.

by tresselfan on May 20, 2008 4:09 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

That is why I stopped visiting AN at night.

The tequila burns my nostrils.

You don't win friends with salad.

by tresselfan on May 20, 2008 4:11 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!

"The two of them deserve each other. One's a born liar, the other's convicted."

by SwampyD on May 20, 2008 4:27 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

that goes in the "potential sigline" database

We're going to knock balls out of the country's park, for the home team, which is America. @('.')@

by monkeyball on May 20, 2008 5:07 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

and another thing

You can stick that “semantic squad” b.s. where the son don’t shine, brother. If you’re going to post something, you need to own it—and you ain’t owning what you’re writing.

We're going to knock balls out of the country's park, for the home team, which is America. @('.')@

by monkeyball on May 20, 2008 11:54 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

oy: "sun"

We're going to knock balls out of the country's park, for the home team, which is America. @('.')@

by monkeyball on May 20, 2008 11:55 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

So, it's really the Spelling Squad, then?

The Typing Team? The Keyboard Cops?

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on May 20, 2008 12:21 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

My Favorite Barney tune, you should be prepared

Sun, sun… Mr. Golden Sun, please shine down on meeeeee!!!!!!

by jeffro on May 20, 2008 3:46 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs