Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:





Smith and Eveland: A Comparative Look

When Rich Harden returns to the rotation on May 11th, for something between one pitch and the rest of the season, he will likely bump either Greg Smith or Dana Eveland from the rotation - and it is conceivable that at some point this season one of them could be marked for a stint in AAA.

But while it was Eveland, not Smith, who made the team out of spring training, and while overall Eveland has pitched pretty well, there are a number of reasons why I favor leaving Smith in the rotation and bumping Eveland into the "DiNardo role" (formerly known as the "Saarloos role" - which is long reliever, 6th starter, next guy sent to AAA, guy waiting for Harden to break so he can rejoin the rotation).

Going "inside the numbers," Smith has an edge that is actually substantial, in that Smith has allowed as many as 3 ER in only one of his six starts - and that was when he gave up a 3-run bomb in the first inning only to blank the Royals in the 2nd-5th innings - while Eveland has given up 3 ER or more in three of his seven starts. Another important difference: Smith has gone 6 innings or more in five of his six starts, while Eveland has failed to do so in four of his six starts - the last four prior to last night.

Going "outside the numbers," the differences between Smith and Eveland appear to be that Smith is already a "pitcher" - meaning he has control, command, poise, maturity, and a clear plan he can execute - while Eveland is still very much a "thrower" - meaning he has good stuff but has less of an idea of what he wants to do or how to do it efficiently or consistently.

As a result, Smith really has nothing to "work on" in the bullpen or minors, while Eveland might benefit from the extra bullpen work a long reliever can get, or from a stint in AAA. If one of them had to be optioned to AAA at some point, I would actually favor sending Eveland down even though it would use up an option year (#2), which it wouldn't with Smith (he uses up option #1 this year no matter what). Why? Because the team will still have an option on Eveland in 2009, and frankly if by 2010 he is scuffling enough that the A's want to send him down to the minors, that means he will have fallen far enough down on the A's "depth chart," probably behind Gio Gonzalez, Trevor Cahill, James Simmons, and Brett Anderson, and he will just be "the guy from the Haren trade who didn't pan out." By 2010, he needs to stick or move on.

Finally, while a sample of 6-7 starts each is small, the sample is larger than 6-7 starts. In April and May, Smith has pitched exactly as he did in the Cactus League and in his one start for Sacramento: throwing strikes, keeping hitters off balance, getting outs. In April and May, Eveland has also pitched exactly as he did in the Cactus League: Showing a good arm, putting a lot of guys on base, throwing a lot of pitches, getting out of more jams than not, and being inconsistent but promising.

Conclusion: Don't let the radar gun fool you. Eveland still has a lot to work on, while Smith just needs a lot of work - as in, every 5th day in the major leagues.

1 recs | Comment 232 comments | Add your comment

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

I'd probably put Eveland in the pen...

He doesn’t have anything left to prove in the minors. He’s pitched well enough to have a spot in ANY team’s rotation. Maybe they could even work something out where there’s some type of 6-man rotation without having get skip Blanton (even though Blanton’s been the worst pitcher this year).

Let’s face it… Harden probably won’t make his start. If he does, he’ll get hurt 3 starts down the road.

Duke deserves a chance in the rotation but he’s as brittle as… we… peanut brittle. So, my feeling is that both Smith and Eveland will basically both get 25 starts this year, which is probably about perfect for rookies.

"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra

by brenarlo on May 6, 2008 7:07 AM PDT reply reply   0 recs

No love for Blanton?

I guess worst is relative. He’s pitching deeper into the game than anybody else on the team. I don’t have the stats in front of me, but it seems like he’s given up the majority of his runs in the seventh inning. A quicker hook from Geren and he’s probably among the league leaders in ERA. Not that ERA’s the greatest. He gives up a lot of hits, but doesn’t walk many.

Chiba Lotte lost simultaneously in the fighter plane of the Japanese ham.

by JediLeroy on May 6, 2008 8:00 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I'm looking into this..

not quite what I thought, but still interesting. Results to follow.

Chiba Lotte lost simultaneously in the fighter plane of the Japanese ham.

by JediLeroy on May 6, 2008 8:36 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

His Ks have plummeted this year from low to dangerously low

There really aren’t any pitchers in the majors who succeed with his current K-rate unless they get a ton of GBs, which Blanton doesn’t. It’ll improve somewhat, but it’s not a good sign.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on May 6, 2008 9:03 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

"Worst" being relative, of course.

Many teams, even good teams, would love to have a “worst” pitcher perform like Blanton.

Some read stats. Fans actually watch the games.

by UncleLeo on May 6, 2008 12:47 PM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Bad typing...

get = to
we = well

Geez!

"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra

by brenarlo on May 6, 2008 7:08 AM PDT reply reply   0 recs

Say wut pilgrim??????

Harden = fools gold. Second coming of Mark Fidrych.

ANY QUESTIONS???

by KennySeagle on May 6, 2008 7:10 AM PDT reply reply   0 recs

A long reliever probably won't get much work in the A's pen

as evidenced by DiNardo, Saarloos, and Braden. I’d send Eveland down to keep him fresh for his inevitable return to the rotation.

by boilerdan on May 6, 2008 7:41 AM PDT reply reply   0 recs

Agree

Whoever ends up getting bumped out of the rotation needs to head down to AAA and remain on-turn as a starter. They’ll be back at some point during the year. The Gaudin/Duke/Harden part of the rotation is too fragile for me not to believe that our “6th man” won’t be needed again.

by LoveDemAs on May 6, 2008 7:49 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Finally

Got to watch the A’s game here in DC thanks to Baltimore going for the visit. I loved what I saw out of Eveland. Hitters were having a tough time getting solid contact and they never seemed to get much lift. He got some timely double plays and played some solid defense himself.

I figure he’s the candidate for demotion if it had to be a 5 man rotation, but I really think he’s developing well. I wouldn’t want him to go to long relief and would rather see him continue to work out at Sacramento on a regular schedule. I’d want him to keep the mindset of a starter.

I’ve got to say that Smith and Eveland look like they could be long term members of the A’s rotation for years to come as Beane may have struck again.

It's just more exciting with Billy Beane running the team.

by ru155 on May 6, 2008 8:07 AM PDT reply reply   0 recs

Get mlb.tv

right now. You will not regret it. And get premium. It’s worth it.

It's Rhodes Scholar Night at the Coliseum tonight.

by Scottbass on May 7, 2008 12:56 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

absolutely

it’s amazing

"It's not my fault your team's so shitty." -Steve Friend, head coach, Chabot College, to Laney College's head coach, who asked why we scored so many runs after we beat Laney 30-3 in 2006

by flipgatey3 on May 7, 2008 9:04 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Had it last season = amazing

I needed to wait until I picked up my Tax Refund check so I’d have the extra cash to get it. It’s tough paying off student loans, and having to live in an expensive city like DC where they can pay you peanuts because of all the idealistic kids that jump at the chance to work on policy.

It's just more exciting with Billy Beane running the team.

by ru155 on May 7, 2008 12:34 PM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

It's Nico...

and he’s wrong. This would be Eveland’s final option year if they send him down.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 6, 2008 4:13 PM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I'm not so sure it's so clear cut.

Both are pitching really well.

The following stats are K/G, BB/G, HR/G, infield flies per fly ball, groundball percentage

Pitcher A:     6.7    4.0    0.22    23.7%    49.2%
Pitcher B:     7.8    3.3    1.01    17.8%    37.5%

Pitcher B strikes out more guys and walks fewer, but Pitcher A induces more weak weak contact in the form of popups and groundouts. Can you guess who is who? And more importantly, does the choice seem quite as clear?

This is a good problem to have, as none of our five pitchers are very good demotion/bullpen candidates.

stat-addled alien overlord

by salb918 on May 6, 2008 8:17 AM PDT reply reply   0 recs

I wonder how much difference it makes

that we have a pretty drastic difference between IF and OF defense, which cuts in favor of Eveland.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on May 6, 2008 9:21 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

B is Gerg, A is Eveland

I’ve noticed that Eveland gets a ton of weak contact off his pitches. He also tends to get wild from time to time.

Prince: This bores me. Is anyone up for a game of basketball?

by baseb3383 on May 6, 2008 12:25 PM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

A fair arguement Nico

But Eveland is on my fantasy team, therefore demoting him hurts me.

I don’t want to be hurt.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on May 6, 2008 8:23 AM PDT reply reply   0 recs

No objectively right answer, but I think Eveland stays

Looking at the two players minor league careers, you see many similarities. Eveland has thrown 413.2 innings, walked 127, struck out 405, with a 2.61 ERA and 1.17 WHIP. Smith has thrown 358.1 innings, walked 105, struck out 309, with a 3.27 ERA and 1.19 WHIP. Eveland has a better strikeout percentage, but other than that the numbers are very similar. Both players are 25. Statistically, there is nothing that jumps out to pick one over the other.

However, there are two reasons why I think Eveland stays in the rotation if it is a choice of him or Smith being demoted. First, Eveland has a bit more stuff than Smith, and therefore has more potential to improve and adjust as hitters do. Smith is always going to be a live-on-the-edge type of pitcher that is going to get shelled if he gets the ball up or misses corners. To his credit, he has pitched great in the majors so far. To Eveland’s credit, he has pitched well also and with refinement can improve. Smith is very unlikely to improve, and hitters are going to adjust.

The second reason I think Eveland stays is mental. He has already been in the majors twice and has been demoted, and has been labeled a failed prospect. Demoting him to the minors is likely to hurt his confidence, and that is something that has to be considered in making these types of decisions. Smith can go to the minors with his head held high, secure in the knowledge that he has done well and that the fragile players ahead of him will inevitably lead to future opportunities.

by BlameChannel53 on May 6, 2008 8:36 AM PDT reply reply   0 recs

Excellent point on the mental issue

Strange to be talking about mental issues and not be referring to myself. Eveland has nothing left to prove in the minors, everyone knows it. To demote inspite of having success can only hurt his development. Smith came up to cover for an injured pitcher, he knew his time in Oakland was short. He’s certainly impressed in his time here but the reality is he came as a fill-in.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on May 6, 2008 8:56 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I sort of disagree with mental analysis like this...

If he is fragile enough that it could shatter him to be sent to the minors, I don’t want him sniffing a pennant race. That said, I don’t really think it will hurt Eveland’s confidence. Even though he seems to lose his command a bit when getting hit, I don’t think its a confidence issue; confidence seems to be his strength.

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on May 6, 2008 8:58 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Players are not robots

Confidence is a key component of athletic success, and it woud be silly for a team to disregard mental issues. Toronto is a great example of a team that consistently mindfucks its prospects, and then wonders why they don’t develop.

by BlameChannel53 on May 6, 2008 9:35 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

It's not a question of being fragile

Eveland was pitched nervous in his big league debut. Last year he was coming off an injury to his hand that sidelined him for a large chunk of time. Eveland was/is at a point where he needs to be facing big league hitters, he needs to prove that he can get big league hitters out.

He’s done that. He’s proven to himself and to his team that he can pitch in the bigs. Now you want to yank the carpet from undernearth him by demoting him?

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on May 6, 2008 4:47 PM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

+1

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on May 6, 2008 12:37 PM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

good points

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on May 6, 2008 9:06 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I think it's time to package Blanton and Street for the best bat Billy can muster

I would really like to see them lockup Street though, I really feel he has staying power despite the gamethread criticisms. But from a purely business/talent perspective, they can probably get a lot of good stuff for Blanton/Street, and they seem to have depth to be able to afford to move those guys.

As far as who stays and who goes now, I think Smith has just slightly outpitched Eveland, and also think Eveland could be a great setup man a la Duke when Duke was crowded out of the rotation, so he could pitch here as a setup man if people are afraid of burning his options, or he could go to Sac and continue to start.

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on May 6, 2008 8:56 AM PDT reply reply   0 recs

Brewers Might be the Place

We couldn’t get Fielder or Braun, but what about Corey Hart and/or their best prospect?? Matt Laporta—OF—is the guy, I believe. They desperately need a closer and their rotation is now in tatters after losing Gallardo. I’m not saying trade them both—unless a lot is coming back. But there is some urgency with that team—they probably can’t sign both Fielder and Braun long-term, plus Braun has clear defensive liabilities, meaning their window might only be open for 2-3 more years.

by madmongoose on May 6, 2008 9:06 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Forget about either Fielder or Braun.

Didn’t Beane ask for Weeks in exchange for Street during the offseason?

by mikev on May 6, 2008 9:19 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I like the way you think

Street for LaPorta makes a lot of sense for both teams.

by BlameChannel53 on May 6, 2008 9:31 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

...LaPorta has no position

Actually, you could say that about most of the Brewers team, but it’s particularly true of him.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 6, 2008 9:40 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

And the A's have had a below average offense for years

I don’t care about LaPorta’s position. The A’s don’t have a player in their system that can hit like him. La Porta can play left, 1B or DH. Barton, Carter, and Doolittle all have their good pints, but La Porta is better than any of them, and the A’s need to find a Scary Monster if they want to improve their offense.

by BlameChannel53 on May 6, 2008 9:43 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

So sign Pat Burrell as a free agent, whatever

I don’t get the “scary monster” thing. Yeah, Prince Fielder hits a lot of home runs. And yet he’s marginally, if at all, better than Nick Swisher, because Swisher actually plays a real position well, instead of first base terribly.

I’d much rather get a Reed Brignac than a Matt LaPorta, especially given the inclination of the current farm system.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 6, 2008 9:54 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Are you like a shill for the temperance movement? Or maybe a PETA member tired of sausage racing?

Seriously, on what planet is Prince Fielder “marginally, if all, better” than Nick Swisher? I think somebody might have poisoned your wheaties this morning, Paul

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on May 6, 2008 9:57 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

i realized i was unclear

on what planet is Fielder ONLY marginally…etc

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on May 6, 2008 9:58 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

On planet Baseball Prospectus?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 6, 2008 9:59 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

The they play real baseball games on planet Baseball Prospectus?

I...drink...your...milkshake! I drink it up! - Daniel Plainview

by methodrampage on May 6, 2008 10:00 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

It turns out that in real baseball games

you need “fielders” who can “catch” balls and create “outs.”

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 6, 2008 10:03 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

It's unreal how much you defend Cust, and in those threads concede he might be an .840 OPS guy

And then right here slam Corey Hart for being an 840 OPS guy (who can catch the ball), and try to suggest any amount of 1B defense can overcome a 150 pt OPS difference.

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on May 6, 2008 10:05 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I defend Cust plenty, but the difference is

it wouldn’t make any sense at all to trade for Cust if it took what it would take to get Hart. Cust for Hart would be a great trade! Point is, he’s not a good fit as a trade target. Obviously, he’s good.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on May 6, 2008 10:11 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Precisely

As for the Swisher/Fielder thing, I see Swisher as a RF ideally who is 10 RAA as a fielder. Fielder is a 1B who is 10 runs below average. Add in a 5 run positional advantage for Swisher and that’s a 25 run difference.

25 runs is a lot…

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 6, 2008 10:22 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

50 - 22 = 28

28 homeruns is a lot…

I...drink...your...milkshake! I drink it up! - Daniel Plainview

by methodrampage on May 6, 2008 10:31 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Hey, if you can't keep up with the conversation,

it’s better to excuse yourself than to say stupid things, okay?

stat-addled alien overlord

by salb918 on May 6, 2008 10:37 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Advice ignored.

I...drink...your...milkshake! I drink it up! - Daniel Plainview

by methodrampage on May 6, 2008 10:42 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I don't understand where you get 10 RAA

He’s 3 RAA in 189 games in his career in RF. He’s -3 in CF in 80 games. In LF he’s 9 in 93 games, so seems like LF is his best position…Also, I don’t understand the 5 run “positional” bonus. Isn’t a run a run in these types of stats? In 343 career games, Prince Fielder is -6 RAA.

Meanwhile Fielder was 50 RAA last year, Swisher was only 23.
And Fielder is only 22, and Vegan.

So if I misunderstand these stats, which I have a tendency to do, please tell me. But from my first glance, it seems like you are pulling numbers out of your ass.

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on May 6, 2008 10:50 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

50 to 23 BRAA

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on May 6, 2008 10:53 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Where are you getting your RAA from?

It’s not BPro, is it? Their fielding numbers are all wacky.

The positional bonus is to account for replacement level, I wrote about this a few months ago.

MGL’s UZR has Swisher at +20 and +14 runs per 150 games as a LF/RF from 03-07. It’s likely that he’s a true talent +10 at the corners. I don’t have numbers for Prince, but he’s got a terrible rep, and I’d be surprised if he’s not more than -5 as a first baseman.

stat-addled alien overlord

by salb918 on May 6, 2008 11:10 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

In the process of assembling a reply

Sal basically posted everything I was going to say anyway.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 6, 2008 11:13 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

"These are needed so that an average fielding 1B is not valued the same as an average fielding SS. "

I still don’t understand how this is valuable when building a baseball team. Nick Swisher might be a better golfer, and a better football punter than Prince Fielder too, but the FRAA already takes scarcity of skill at a position into account when measuring, so I don’t understand. The Runs Measure everything. For example, an average shortstop and an average 1B have equal value to the teams winning chances, they both don’t allow, or prevent any more runs than average. A great corner OFer and a great 1B would have their value show up in the number of FRAAs. Even though they are both great, the OF might be at 10 and the 1B at 5. It’s built into the statistic! It’s like giving bonus runs to Swisher because he has a cool haircut or is a better golfer than Fielder.

I’ve never really understood that—I mean kudos for being able to play a more difficult defensive position, but average players are average players whether they are SS or 1B. The “bonus runs” show up when you compare great players, or compare bad players at their position.

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on May 6, 2008 11:52 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Average 1Bs HIT BETTER

than average shortstops.

That’s why the adjustment is made. Positions which are easier to field are stocked with superior hitters because it’s easier to find them. Prince Fielder is competing against a tougher group of hitters at 1B than Swisher is in the outfield. Tougher by about 5 runs, in fact.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 6, 2008 11:54 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

ok

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on May 6, 2008 11:57 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Are you using FRAA?

Firstly, the positional advantage has to do with the fact that Swisher plays OF. Fielder plays 1b. If Fielder tried to play OF, his defensive ratings would be much worse than if he played 1b. That’s the reason for the positional advantage that Swisher gets.

As for the D. I’m using 2 play by play metrics, RZR from THT, with the raw data from BIS, and Zone Rating, with the data from Stats. By Revised Zone Rating, he’s at a very solid 919, in CF. He hasn’t played enough innings to qualify, but if he did, he would be solidly in the middle of the qualified CFs in the AL. And he has also made a solid number of out of zone plays, 14. Guys in the AL with more who qualify, Adam Jones, BJ Upton, Torii Hunter. And it is not just RZR that has him holding his own in CF. By Zone Rating, Swisher has a 959 rating. Limiting the list to guys who have played more than 100 innings at CF, the only players in the AL with higher zone ratings are Carlos Gomez and Curtis Granderson. Swisher has played 140 innings, the regular CFs in the AL have played 200-250 innings so far.

In 2007, RZR had Swisher 9 runs above average in RF, zone rating had him 5 runs above average. Fielder was at 12 runs BELOW average and 7 runs BELOW average.

And using UZR for the years before 2007, Swisher typically average around 5-10 runs above average in the corners.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on May 6, 2008 11:19 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

His last name is Fielder

Duh!

I...drink...your...milkshake! I drink it up! - Daniel Plainview

by methodrampage on May 6, 2008 10:05 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Ironic, isn't it.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 6, 2008 10:17 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

So he's not royalty, either?

Man, he got the short end of the “living up to his name” stick.

by mikev on May 6, 2008 10:18 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

And he does a mean cover

of “Let’s Go Crazy.”

"God doesn't pay attention to your cute little hypotheticals." -- Jeff from LL

by oblique on May 6, 2008 4:05 PM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

but...

Swisher has more magical powers than Fielder does!

I once saw him pickpocket a leprechaun from 30 feet away!

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

by Gaijin_Suketto on May 6, 2008 11:23 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Okay, you take 1.000 OPS and 50 HR,

and we’ll take reality and evidence.

Some things aren’t a matter of opinion.

stat-addled alien overlord

by salb918 on May 6, 2008 11:26 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Just as an off-the-cuff calculation,

Last year, Prince was +4.5 as a hitter, -1 for position, so he was +3.5 before fielding.

Last year, Swish was +2.5 as a hitter, -5 for position (if you consider him a corner OF. That made him +2.0 before fielding.

Was there a 15 run difference in their defense last year? It wouldn’t surprise me if it were so. Swish and Prince were probably close as far as value is concerned. Of course, Prince has more room to grow, in both a positive and negative sense given his age and weight (respectively).

stat-addled alien overlord

by salb918 on May 6, 2008 10:20 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Burrell is also one of the worst 3-4 defensive OFers in mlb

Not what we need.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on May 6, 2008 9:57 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs