Part of

« Breaking news: Romero passes physical, deal done | Main | Phillies designate Sergio Escalona for assignment »

Thursday, January 06, 2011


Ah, Mayberry. Had forgotten about him.

I love the phrase "in the mix;" it simply reaks of mediocrity.

I still like Mayberry. The kid can play the outfield, runs adequately, and has pop. I don't think he'll ever be a starter, but given some games against lefty starters and used for pinch hitting, I think he holds value.

Per Randy Miller, RAJ is doubtful on Durbin and says they are most likely keeping Blanton.

Mayberry will have to defeat Delwyn Young, Robb Quinlan and Michael Martinez head-to-head in Spring Training to make this team.

May the best man win.

Looks like the Phils agree with GM-Carson as to Mayberry's value as they have persistently protected him on the 40-Man.

Somebody mentioned Chooch's catcher ERA in the previous thread. I wonder why, out of the several Aces we have that none of them have a particular jockey they request like so many of the big time Ace's have done on other teams?
Is there no love for the Hoov?

"says they are most likely keeping Blanton."

I ran this statement through my handy bullsh*t translator, and here's how it came out: "There's no way in the world we plan to keep Blanton, when Kyle Kendrick is a whole lot cheaper & not that much worse. But if I make it sound like we might actually keep Blanton, then maybe teams will offer more in return."

bap, I would say your b*llsh*t translator is a highly tuned and accurate piece of equipment.

Agree with BAP's BS-o-meter needle leaning toward the hot and steamy side.

bap, one thing I forgot to mention: YOu need to be careful.

Do you realize that you actually discussed KK in the same sentence with Joe Blanton?

Do you realize that you actually gave KK a left-handed [or left-coast, if you prefer :)] compliment.

Again, be careful.

Complimenting KK on this site can earn you the ire and contempt of the official KK Haters Club.

I'd say that Blanton gets a lot more undeserved hatred on BL than Kendrick.

Most like keeping Blanton = "Man, I hope Minnesota overpays for Pavano by the time ST starts!"

If Rube winds up keeping Blanton, he's going to regret offering KK arbitration instead of releasing him this winter. Translation: there is no way that they are keeping Fat Joe.

"Complimenting KK on this site can earn you the ire and contempt of the official KK Haters Club."

I'm actually a member of that club &, just to make sure I don't get kicked out, let the record show that I wasn't praising KK. I was merely putting myself in Amaro's shoes & imagining what he was probably thinking. Or, more accurately, I was just reporting what my BS translator said.

Per Randy Miller, RAJ is doubtful on Durbin and says they are most likely keeping Blanton.
Posted by: Scotch Man | Thursday, January 06, 2011 at 05:17 PM

Based on Rube's track record, that probably means they trade Blanton and re-sign Durbin.

"Based on Rube's track record, that probably means they trade Blanton and re-sign Durbin."

And also flipping Cole Hamels for Zach Grenkie.

Hey, anybody got any coupons for Muscle Milk?

Damn, dont make us keep a decent #3 starter as our #5...DAMNIT.

Just remember that every fifth game or so Kyle will pitch better than one of the Aces. So the rotation should be called "Four Aces and a Fifth"

bap - I'm not gonna believe you til you say that Kyle kicks big-eyed puppies while stealing candy from babies while sleeping with their mothers in order to slip their grocery money out of their pocket books on his way to his monster-truck hummer which he drives fifteen miles out of the way to run over baby bunnies.

NEPP, I respect your opinion but the way he shows up all out of shape and takes a dump in his first half season of starts and sweats worse than Padilla sweating off a hangover whenever the temp gets over 80, I got a whole lot less respect for the guy. He is a 4 at best these days.

More like a fifth of bourbon.

Andy, should be "gas-guzzling, global-warming-causing monster truck hummer".

KK should have been DFA'd regardless of whether the team keeps Blanton.
Don't insult Blanton by saying KK is not much worse. Blanton is an OK 3rd starter. I wouldn't pay Kendrick 5 cents above the major league minimum to watch his knees knock, every time a LH hitter steps in the box.

mikey, take heart. There may be light at the end of the tunnel. KK's numbers improved vs. LHB in 2010.

Lifetime: .320 .382 .531 .913

2010: .312 .367 .535 .902

a fifth of rot-gut

mikes: I'm no great KK fan but Blanton was certainly no 3rd starter last year &, if he was better than KK, it was by the slimmest of margins.

Going forward, I expect Blanton to be the better of the 2, but not so much better as to justify the $6 or $7M difference in their salaries. That $6 or $7M will pay for the mid-season reinforcements that will very likely be necessary when something unexpected goes wrong.

Twins are about to sign Pavano to a 2-year deal. How much it's worth will tell us a decent amount about whether and for what Joe Blanton can be traded.

Blanton's 2010 appears to have been a lost year, not a defining year. The guy is plenty good to be a no. 4, he's just gotta have a short leash the third time through the lineup (and god forbid the 4th).

Five crates of Scotch whisky and two of brandy.

Hugh- At this point, Blanton only sees the lineup for a fourth time if it's in the third inning.

Blanton is much better than Kyle Kendrick. Blanton was good for 1.9 WAR even in his down year where he was battling an injury the first half. Overall he is a steady 2-3 WAR player.

KK, on the other hand, was only worth .7 WAR last year and has never exceed 1 WAR in any of his seasons.

All of that is not to say that we should definitely keep Blanton if we get a good enough offer, but to say that Blanton = Kendrick is ludicrous.

Exactly, dlhunter. With that said, I'd bet on Kentucky Joe being better in '11.

apropos of nothing, does anyone know if you can buy Blanton's bourbon in PA? A (Joe Blanton-loving) friend has repeatedly recommended it but, I haven't seen it at the bars I infrequent.

Yeah, Blanton is better than Kendrick. I think it's still his job to lose, but KK might not even be #5 starter next year, if Blanton is moved (Worley).

Mayberry can't hit a breaking ball to save his life. Pass.

Back to the HOF debate:

Joe Posnanski has a timely article up on

Blanton beats KK but I'm with Bedrosian's Beard. No.5 could end up being Worley if the BS translator is correct and Joe goes.

The only thing I believe that has kept Blanton here this long is that the Phils have to move cash to move him. If the Phils could trade him for the proverbial box of donuts, I believe they would.

MG, IMO RAJ hasn't traded Blanton because he thinks he can do better by waiting. It was acknowledged by many here in weeks past that waiting until after Pavano signed was a wise strategy.

Looks like we're about to find out if that's true.

Heather: Who said Blanton = Kendrick?

Going back quickly to the HOF debate, I looked up some of Bonds' numbers. If you cut out everything that happened after 1998 (when he, by all accounts including the definitive one by Williams and Fainaru-Wade in "Game of Shadows", began using steroids), Bonds still had an unbelievable career.

Stopping his career after his age 33 season in 1998, Bonds had a career line of .290/.411/.556 for a 164 OPS+, with 411 HRs and 445 SBs, 3 MVP awards and 8 Gold Gloves. That's not only a Hall of Fame career, that's an inner circle Hall of Famer. That's a better career than guys like Clemente, Yastrzemski, and plenty of others. Joe Dimaggio's career line was .325/.398/.579 for a 155 OPS+, with 361 HRs and 3 MVP awards (he played before Gold Gloves were awarded but presumably would have won a bunch).

awh - Maybe but if the Blanton move is just a cost cutting move then why wait really? If they have to move even $3-$4M in cash upfront, it almost defeats the purpose of moving Blanton immediately.

Jack: No one is arguing that his stats aren't impressive. The argument is whether or not anyone gives a damn about them in light of his steroid use. The answers of the sportswriters, veterans committee and many fans seems to be NO.

Bonds wasn't exactly a popular person among sports writers before he was found to be a cheater.

If you think that the sports writers OR the veterans are going to induct the defining figure of steroid use in baseball to the HOF, you're kidding yourself. He's got about as much chance of getting in as Canseco.

He may have been caught by someone for the first time in 1998, but there's no reason to believe that he didn't use sooner. He's a liar and a cheater, so why on earth should anyone take his word for anything. As far as I'm concerned, you don't get inducted to the HOF based on a portion of your career - you get voted in for your career as a whole. If you blew it toward the end by using steroids and breaking records that you didn't have the talent to break, tough're not a Hall of Famer, you are a cheater and a disgrace to the game, and your statistics mean nothing.


I read an article the other day that averaged all 30 teams #1-5 starters ERAs and was shocked by the data. Kyle Kendrick with his sub-5 ERA is most definitely a worthy #5 starter and actually would be a 4 on most teams. I don't love the guy, but he's helped this team and will continue to do so in the future if given the chance.

With that said, I'm hoping Vance Worley competes with him and gets some starts too to show his mettle.

BAP, you (or you speaking as Amaro) stated that Kendrick was "not that much worse" than Blanton. I took that to mean you perceived the difference to be negligable, which I disagree with.

Now maybe by "not that much different", you mean Blanton is worth about twice to three times as much WAR over a full season than Kendrick....

Honestly I wouldn't be disappointed at all if the team kept Blanton. Not to wish negative karma, but with 3 of your ace starters on the wrong side of 30, some DL time for any of them is a distinct possibility.

I understand the team wants to dump salary, but I'm not entirely sure that anyone who might want Blanton would take on his entire salary, anyway....

MG, RAJ may already have offers on the table for Blanton, he just may not view any of them as acceptable. He may have a "contingency offer" on the table from the Yankees, which may be the best offer, but is contingent upon Pettitte retiring. That alone would explain the wait.

If Pettitte retires the Yankees will certainly be motivated, and are one of the teams - maybe the only team - that can take on JB's entire contract without blinking.

So, why wait? The answer is above.

We're certainly not "in the know" as to what is transpiring, but I find it hard to believe that at this point RAJ doesn't have more than one place to ship Blanton, or at least an idea of what kinds of deals can be made.

It’s possible that there are other teams interested who are waiting to get some things done.

Blanton would certainly be an upgrade for a lot of teams.

It's also possible that the Phillies have the ability to wait until the trade deadline, and have made the determination that THAT is the best course of action. If Blanton is traded by June, the Phillies still save half his salary – $4.25MM – which still gives them flexibility.

Another thing you’re not considering is that BOTH Blanton and KK could be traded if Worley beats KK out for the 5th starter slot, and another young arm demonstrates he’s ready to assume the middle/long relief role.

As much as it pains bap and the rest of the KK Hater’s Club to contemplate it, KK does have value. Sure, he’s not Blanton much less a top starter, but if you look at what get’s trotted out to the mound as a 5th starter these days, KK is an upgrade over some of them (we’ve had this debate before, when Fatalotti posted some numbers showing where KK ranked among all MLB pitchers, which was somewhere in the 80-90 range out of 150 possible starters).

So, I’m willing to be patient, and you should be too. Blanton doesn’t start getting paid until April. They’ve got 3 months to get something done.

Carson, how about a link to that article.

Post it so the KK Hater's Club can read it and be driven out of their collective minds.

I don't remember the Phils signing catcher Kevin Cash to a minor league deal.


"WAR... what is it good for?'

MG, let me put it to you this way:

If Joe Blanton is traded on March 31st to a team willing to assume his entire salary, the Phillies save the same amount of money as they would if they traded him today under the same terms.

There is no financial downside until the season starts.

Here's a link to the article about the average ERA for each starter #1-5.

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5
3.60 4.14 4.58 5.10 6.24

So there ya go, KK is a good #4. We are allowed to be happy with him as our #5 for sure. Would Blanton be better? Yes, but also more costly. If we can unload his entire contract to get wiggle room that would be awesome.

Pavano is almost certainly going to sign for larger than 2yr/$17M, which is what Blanton costs going forward.

The runner up in the Pavano deal seems to be the Nationals. Money doesn't seem to be that tight over in DC right now - so maybe getting Blanton's full salary taken won't be as hard as originally thought.

Hmmm, if Worley is ready to be the #5, and KK is due to get a raise to above $2MM, as was speculated at yesterday, then the Phillies, by trading both of them, could save as much as $10-11MM.

"if you look at what get’s trotted out to the mound as a 5th starter these days,"

These days? The average fifth starter has never been very good.

"#1 #2 #3 #4 #5
3.60 4.14 4.58 5.10 6.24"

I don't like this analysis**, as it moves pitchers up the line because of injuries. This #5 category includes guys who were an organization's 6th, 7th and 8th starters, depending on how badly they got bitten by SP injuries. So what number do you compare KK*** against?

** Going from memory, since the link isn't working for me.
*** I suppose relative this panel, I am an irrational KK lover, as I see him as perfectly cromulent #5 starter.

You know, they may keep Blanton and move KK to the 'pen, thus no need for Durbin. And there is no need to trade Joe at all. The Phab Phour and Joe is the best rotation on the planet. I've said this before.

And I like keeping Blanton and KK because they are insurance policies against injury. Speculation is that KK will get ~ 2 million, so you can see why they've waiting with Durbin. Since they are't/weren't going to get what they want in return for Blanton, it's best to keep him. See what the deadline needs for other teams are.

I wish I were happier about the RH bat situation, which I don't feel is very good.

I don't like the idea of moving both K-Joe and KK because then the Phils would not have anyone decent as an emergency starter/injury fill-in. To contend, you should have a 6th starter stashed somewhere.

re: ERA charts

in 2010, there were 6 pitchers who qualify as below average 5th starters with at least 10 starts:

Brian Bannister - KCR
Kyle Lohse - STL
Jason Marquis - WSN
Rowland-Smith - SEA
Dana Eveland - TOR/PIT
Charlie Morton - PIT

So every other single starter in baseball should be considered an "above average" 5th starter?

edmundo: exactly, if your 5th starter pitches to a 6+ ERA - guess what? He isn't your 5th starter anymore!

All the chart does is show the failure of teams to fill out their rotation with capable starters. It doesnt show that pitchers with 5.50 ERAs should be creditted as "above average".

awh: I have always been a KK fan. Just because people dont know how to use that meaningless ERA chart doesnt mean people who are smart enough to discount it are 'KK haters'.

re: Blanton trade

The only reason I support a Joe Blanton trade is if ownership told Amaro that it was necessary to free up money if Cliff Lee was going to be signed.

If the Phils ownership can sustain Blanton's contract, then they should keep him until a team offers something of value in terms of players/prospects.

Like to see Tuffy and Naughton get some playing time in the early ST games. If Naughton can stay healthy he has some pop and was once recognized as a top defensive catcher in the SAL. Not many lefthanded hitting catchers around. Kevin Cash is listed as a non roster invitee for the Rangers:

Anyone who uses WAR to make a point is not making a valid argument.

Amaro is clearly just waiting to see what Pavano does as that will give a clearer indication as to who the potential Blanton suitors are and he can play them against each other.

I don't think much of Marquis, but I think he'll rebound a little bit from last year's performance.

if all these articles are accurate today, they aren't trading blanton and they are basically done for the offseason. i tend to agree with that actually

Marquis shoulda followed Ankiel into the outfield. He'd have a heckuvan arm for a RF. Not so much on the mound.

Watching Blylevyn Hall of Fame interviews, I believe he is actually going to sell his house and move into a janitor's closet in the actual Hall of Fame building. Never did anybody announce how much they belong there after they were already voted in. Is he going to circumvent the whole induction event and just sit there all year?

Heather: WAR is not a reference point to me, so that certainly wasn't what I had in mind when I said what I said.

If you read the sum total of my statements, I think my point was pretty clear. I said that Blanton is better than KK but not so much better as to justify the difference in their salaries. Since that difference is the difference between having the ability to make in-season upgrades or not having that ability, I would rather have KK plus the trading flexibility than Blanton and no trade flexibility.

"All the chart does is show the failure of teams to fill out their rotation with capable starters."

jason, here's where we disagree.

What it shows is the effect of expansion.

There is also another factor, which many people will disagree with, which has IMHO affected the number of decent SP:

Injuries related to the lowering of the mound.

I had an email discussion with Conlin about it, and IIRC he agrees with me, that lowering the mound has put more stress on pitchers' arms/shoulders and increased the percentage of pitchers who wind up on the DL, or worse, wind up like (and there's a long laundry list) Benson, Bud Smith, Prior, etc., etc., etc.

Even guys like Carpenter (and now Santana) have had major surgery. When I was a kid growing up pitchers got injured, but IIRC not nearly as often as they do today.

You're right, teams "fail" to fill out their rotations with capable starters, but I ask you, who are those "capable starters" to whom you are referring?

"So every other single starter in baseball should be considered an "above average" 5th starter?"

I get what you're saying, but the data is not based on pitchers; it's based on the role of the fifth starter. The data is skewed because there are quite a lot of AAA callups late in the year (Worley), AAA short term callups to cover an injured starter (Carpenter) and spot starts from pitchers who otherwise aren't in the rotation (Figuroa). In addition, there are a number of pitchers who begin the season as the #5 starter and are bumped from the role due to performance issues (CHoP, Kendrick in prior seasons) or injury (Moyer). Every team has at least a couple of pitchers who make less than 10 starts in a season, and as you might imagine, they're not the most talented arms on the roster (or else they probably would have had more than 10 starts).

Because of the high number of outliers skewing the data, the mean isn't an appropriate measure unless you're sample is limited to #5 starters with a certain number of starts. You'd get a much more accurate idea if you used the median or the mode.

You would think that shorter pitchers would have a disadvantage just like 3rd basemen.

And I guess the fact modern pitchers, on average, pitch with greater velocity, attempt to throw more different types of pitches and expose their bodies to all sorts of unproven or non-uniform exercises by a variety of training people they never did years ago doesn't have anything to do with injuries?

Raul: Sorry, but you're going to have a hell of a time trying to convince anyone that modern pitchers are under more physical strain than pitchers of previous generations.

Learning a cutter and throwing 4 mph faster while working under a pitch count with a bullpen of specialists does not even come close to the physical demands of pitchers from 1900-1970. Halladay's number of complete games wouldn't even be a stat worth mentioning if he pitched in the 50s.

Will, I would have loved to have seen the average pitchers of the 60's throw years of junk pitches before they ever got to the show and then do power lifting every season. I know they threw 40 games and all that but fastballs are way easier to throw on the arm.

if roy halladay or any other 2010 ace took their stuff to the 1950s, they would pitch perfect games 10 times a year.

jason, while I agree with you that the chart has it's limitations, you, for some reason, can't see the forest for the trees.

The chart is useful in this regard:

While the data was compiled by Sackman to demonstrate the performance teams got from a "slot" in the rotation as opposed to an individual pitcher who was "slotted" for a spot in the rotation, it's still an accurate representation of the production that is realized from the pitcher in that slot - whoever he is.

To wit, if the Phils' 2011 rotation is Doc, Cliff, Roy, Cole and KK, and Cliff were to pull a muscle and miss a start, a AAA callup would arrive and take over the 5th slot, and Roy, Cole and KK would all move up one for the duration of the injury. Under Sackman's methodology, he assigned 32 starts to each slot.

So, if you're criticizing the chart because, in the Phils' scenario above, the measurement of the #4 slot would include starts by the guy who was actually the #5 when the season started, then your criticism is accurate.

Said criticism does not invalidate the chart or render it "meaningless".

Why? Because injuries happen in baseball - frequently to pitchers - and using the chart above does give us a general idea of what the PERFORMANCE was in a certain rotation slot, regardless of who occupied it.

Thus, it has value as a measuring tool, because it allows us to measure the performance of a pitcher like KK against what the expectation is for that "slot".

It also helps show how valuable (or non-valuable) a pitcher can be.

While KK simply ain't R2C2, a pitcher who can stay healthy and give his team 180 - 200 IP out of the 5 slot with a sub-5.00 lifetime ERA does have some value.

He's just never going to be a Cy Young candidate.

Will: Nowadays, you have lineups where 7 or 8 players can rip a mistake out of the park**. There hardly any more Bobby Wine, Ruben Amaro, Sr., Cookie Rojas type players. That, for one, makes pitching harder. The slider is a "strainful" pitch as is the split finger. 50 years ago, pitchers were just starting to adopt the former.
The pitch count is a reaction to the strain of modern day. It doesn't look terribly efficient as a health enhancer though. You'd think with all the advances in medical technology, we'd have much better protocols around keeping a pitching arm healthy. It's not even an art yet, much less science.

** Bigger, stronger players, more HR friendly parks and presumably harder ball have all had their impacts.

"And I guess the fact modern pitchers, on average, pitch with greater velocity"

rgrandpa, you're the first person I've ever heard make such a claim. I'd love it if you could provide some data to back it up.

Jason: Are you saying that a typical ace in 2010, with no pitch counts to baby step them through the transition from the farm to MLB, no Tommy John surgery or other medical breakthroughs and pitching at least 7 innings on most outings on what by today's standards would be considered short rest would blow away Feller, Spahn, Drysdale and Kofax?

In the words of The Chief: "Max, I find that hard to believe."

Carson's chart provides some context for posters who say stupid things like, "KK should be DFA'd" or "KK is an automatic loss." But, Will & jason's point is the same one I have been making for about 3 years: you're comparing him to guys who are so ineffective that they get demoted to the minors. So, yeah, you could certainly say that KK provides some stability in an area where stability can be hard to find. But you're certainly not going to see me celebrating that, among guys who are the worst starters on their teams (most of whmo eventually get demoted to AAA), KK is above average.

ps: also take into consideration that they'd be pitching against fewer teams in a pre-expansion 1950s.

KK is both the most overrated and underrated phillie in BL history.

"if roy halladay or any other 2010 ace took their stuff to the 1950s, they would pitch perfect games 10 times a year."

jason, given that there were only 16 teams, segregation had ended so they Mayses, Aarons, Robinsons, Dobys, etc. were all playing, given that Latinos had just started to make their way North, and given the fact that every other major sport in the US were far in the rear view mirror in societal importance and popularity (most kids played baseball growing up, including stickball and half-ball in the cities), and baseball got it's share of the best athletes, please elaborate as to which lineups (feel free to view them at Halladay would have pitched perfectos against = 10 times a season.

In short, that is probably the vacuously stupid statement ever posted on BL. You have just been self-nominated for inclusion in the Sir Alden Trio.

"And I guess the fact modern pitchers, on average, pitch with greater velocity"

rgrandpa, you're the first person I've ever heard make such a claim. I'd love it if you could provide some data to back it up.

Posted by: awh

I doubt there's data but, I believe it to be true. 20 and 30 years ago, a pitcher throwing 90MPH was considered a hard thrower, whereas today, it's considered pedestrian by fastball standards.

You just take the mean of a zero to ten on the BL rating scale and you get a perfect five.

"The pitch count is a reaction to the strain of modern day."

Yes, Edmundo, and a large part of what has caused that strain is the lowering of the mound.

Or, don't you think being up higher with more downward leverage helped pitchers?

Just askin'?

"I doubt there's data but, I believe it to be true."

And some people believe in psychics, astrology too.

No offense, but believin' don't make it true.

Everything was better 40-50 years ago. Snow was certainly much more fun.

Meyer, there are lots of things better today. But baseball was just as much fun to watch then, despite all the changes that have ostensibly improved the game.

I'm not sure when radar guns were invented, so I doubt you're going to find any data about average velocity 50 years ago. But I think it's pretty widely accepted that, with pitch counts & bullpen specialization, today's pitchers do not have to pace themselves the same way that pitchers 50 years ago did. It would presumably follow that the average velocity of today's pitchers is somewhat higher than it was for pitchers in the past. But that's quite different than saying that guys like Halladay & Lincecum are better pitchers than Koufax and Spahn. That claim seems rather dubious.

Cy Young mocks the babies they call "pitchers" these days.

Bed Beard, yes, the Cy Young of the 749 complete games. (and, no, that is not a typo.)

i have no idea what any of the pitchers in the 50s threw, but i find it hard to believe that any of them possessed the combination of movement and velocity that the current generation does.

The same way that every other sport's athletes continually get better, faster, stronger from year to year to year.

Like someone said before, how many times did Ted Williams have to face some one-trick pony throwing 3/4 quarters from the left side of the mound in the 90s with a slider that broke from behind his shoulder to the outside corner?

Yes, you can buy Blanton's bourbon in PA. It comes highly recommended. Off the top of my head, I know the state store at 40th and Market in West Philly carries it.

I just called the Hall of Fame and I am waiting for them to give me a call back with Walter Johnson's radar charts.
Awh, any idea who holds the record for most losses of all time?

bap, I wonder?

You see, if pitchers 50 years ago were throwing off a higher mound, doesn't it stand to reason that they could get more on the ball, perhaps with less effort?

If throwing with higher velocity makes a pitcher harder to hit, couldn't a case be made that the lower scoring in the past was because pitchers must have been throwing harder - even adjusted for ballparks? After all, they throw a lot more types of pitches today than they did 50 years ago.

Couldn't a case be made that the lowering of the mound has caused pitchers to overextend their arms and shoulders just to maintain the kind of velocity pitchers regualrly had 50 years ago?

You see where I'm going with this. Absent of data, there is no way to prove the statement true.

$40 a bottle, blanton must know his bourbon.

The Phillies?

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories


Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel