Tone deaf
Manny related comments from the time I spent in the media throng surrounding Dodgers owner Frank McCourt after Wednesday night's season ending loss in Game 5 of the NLCS:
"No, it's not a no brainer, because it takes two to (sign him). It's the old expression, "It takes two to tango." So we'll see."
"Sure, I sit there every game, and can see what (Manny) has meant to the team and how he's connected to the fans. But people just can't lose sight of the fact that I don't sit there in some chair in a big office and decide exactly who's going where. There's another side to this, and players make decisions as to where they play. I can't make any predictions because it's up to the player. As much, or more, than it is to me and the organization. We just have to realize that. It's a fact..."
Q: You said you can't predict what players are going to do and where they're going to go, but you can control the team's interest, the organization's interest. Is it something where you anticipate making as much of a push as you can to bring him back?
A: "I'd like to bring back all these guys. I love this team. This team did what no Dodgers team has done in twenty years, so I'd like them all back. But it's not that easy. We have to figure out who fits on this club for next year, and who really wants to be a Dodger. Who wants to be here. So it's a process, and we're certainly going to make our interests very, very clear to the players we want back, and those conversations will be pretty apparent to (the media) as time goes on."
Comforting, no?
I've defended the McCourts with some frequency on this site. They've made some impressive improvements to Dodger Stadium, helping preserve its status as one of the great parks across baseball. They've shown a willingness to spend on the roster (not always wisely, but that you can't fault the owner for bad decisions by the GM). They've opened the checkbook, both in the offseason and at the deadline.
The charge that Frank McCourt hasn't tried to field a winning team and provide fans with a quality stadium experience isn't fair. He's not perfect, but McCourt is hardly a "problem owner."
The reason much of the good stuff gets obscured, though, is because of performances like last night's.
Not from the team, but the owner. Perhaps because he's gun shy from the criticism he's absorbed, McCourt seemed to be preparing Los Angeles for Manny's departure, forging his alibi before the crime is committed. On some level, I don't blame him- my gut tells me he's gone, even if the Dodgers make a good offer (though I've warned you people about my gut before). I'd hate to be the guy who "let Manny get away," too.
But seriously, man, don't play the game. If you want people to believe the team wants to bring Manny back (and I'm assuming they do, all things being equal), make it clear you want to bring Manny back. Fans are not stupid. They understand concepts of payroll, the risks in signing someone of Manny's age to a long contract for a National League team, the incredible and unmatchable offers Ramirez might receive from another organization, that ultimately if Manny wants to play somewhere else, nothing Frank McCourt says will change his mind.
But wouldn't something like this have sounded better?
"Manny was great for this team, the fans, and the city. We'd love to bring him back, and we'll make an honest effort to keep him in a Dodger uniform. We're going to try and make it happen."
It's a simple question, give it a simple answer. Don't dance around it. "Yes, we want him back, we're going to try and keep him" doesn't put them at a negotiating disadvantage with Scott Boras, it just states (what had better be) the obvious. There's no need to remind fans repeatedly that Manny might want to go somewhere else, or that there may be a limit to how many years the Dodgers can extend, or how many dollars they can pay.
This sort of hedging is why, despite some quality work, many fans still don't trust McCourt.
The Winter of Manny is a PR battle as much as a roster problem. Once again, McCourt is off to a bad start on the former.
BK
Subscribe to this Blog | What is RSS?
I say Bring him back for whatever it takes. Its not as if he didn't perform for Boston these last couple of years. I think he has been pushing for that trade for 5 years or so and still putting up those numbers. So we give him a 4 year deal--He is good for 2 years-- We still come out ahead and McCourt makes enough money to write off the last 2 years. What a downer this year would have been without him. I say if you have to--let all the other free agents go and sign Manny. Next year we will be like a singing group.-'Manny and the Kids".
David
Posted by: David s | October 16, 2008 at 05:27 PM
Shorter Blue Notes: McCourt isn't trusted because he doesn't lie enough.
Posted by: Gold Star for Robot Boy | October 16, 2008 at 05:28 PM
BK, you make some very salient points regarding McCourts hedging. Just be upfront with the fans. As I see it he has roughly $58 million in salary to use this offseason. More important, both Schmidt and Jones will be off the payroll in 2010. This would allow him to push some money to future seasons. With the core of extremely cheap and talented players (Kemp, Ethier, Martin, Loney, Kershaw, Billz etc. all under $1 million per year) he can surround them with some talent as they continue to develop. This may not be feasible, but trading (giving away) both Jones and Pierre, while paying half of their salaries, would clear an additional $14 million. This leaves $72 million in salary to dispense this offseason. Give Manny 2 years at 28 million per, Furcal 2 years at 13 per, and Sabathia 5 years at 20 per. That still leaves salary to sign another starting pitcher (or keep Penny) and fill in holes and 2b and backup shortstop. Thoughts??
Posted by: cpark29 | October 16, 2008 at 06:39 PM
Too true! McCourt desperately needs PR help.
I'd go a little further coaching him: "We'll do our absolute best to bring him back..." which still avoids the specifics, but mollifies the us ignorant fans. (It's not like no one's heard of the Bora$$ strategies.)
But there he goes, basically saying that any effort to re-sign Ramirez will be a token gesture, that his mind's made up to include Manny out.
He's mightily trashed his own credibility!!
Meanwhile I'm thinking you could have a great career in PR mop-up...
Posted by: lizzieinsb | October 16, 2008 at 07:02 PM
It's all positioning and nothing more. Truth is there are very few teams that can pay Manny what he is worth, and the Dodgers are one of them.
To eliminate us from contention on one statement is not even wort the internet bits it is printed upon.
The off season is long, and xmas is coming.
Posted by: Benzo Jones | October 16, 2008 at 07:32 PM
this year we witnessed the return of chan ho park..........i say bring back darren dreifort in '09 (LOL!!!!)
Posted by: darrenwho | October 16, 2008 at 07:33 PM
I don't blame McCourt for the current state of the team. Nor do I blame him for any "non-signs", if for a financial reason. That needs to be put on Colletti. However, he doesn't have a very likable personality, that's for sure.
Posted by: DBrim | October 16, 2008 at 07:50 PM
I hear you Benzo...
Negotiation, particularly with Bora$$, won't be a tidy process. It's gonna a be a long winter.
Still, McCourt sharpen up his presentation. Saying we'll mark the yes or no box, trying to sign the Man, doesn't exactly blow McCourt's hand to Bora$$ ..
Meanwhile, he looks like a clod. If the opposite of love is indifference, he's pretty much exposed his true, unappealing self. Nobody needed him to love Manny-- just to acknowledge they're working on a contract or not. Then, they can go work on a lot of other stuff. There's a laundry list.
Even if they're trying really, really hard, Bora$$ won't let this wrap up by the second week after the WS. You're right, it will be a very long winter--but hey, we don't have to live through it in Chi-town, or Cleveland or...
Posted by: lizzieinsb | October 16, 2008 at 08:22 PM
Gold Star-
I don't see it as a question of mistrust because he doesn't lie, but because people don't see what he says as the truth. He's very sensitive to criticism, I believe, and in part deserves to be. Ownership gets a bad rap (as I point out in the post). But on a night where seemingly every fan in LA wants to know if the team will try to get him back, in the five minutes I stood there listening to him, McCourt did nothing but explain why he could get away, and why it wouldn't be his fault.
Colletti, when asked about Furcal, stated it simply: "We'd like to have Furcal back." Obviously numbers matter. Fans understand that. But McCourt, in my perception, took a very self-protecting stance. This is a team with a lot of needs and a great deal of upheaval on the roster. Again, fans aren't stupid- they realize that if the Dodgers go out and get other players at other positions, depending on the cost of those players, it might mean no Manny.
It's not that he should guarantee a Manny return, but it, to me, played like another instance where he had an opportunity to reassure Dodger fans, and missed the mark.
cpark-
2/26 for Furcal makes me awful nervous. I don't think I'd go that high. I love him as a player and a person... but it's important to remember he's spent the last two seasons hurt, and I don't think there's a two year deal for less than totally silly money that would land Manny. Just my feeling.
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | October 16, 2008 at 09:47 PM
Who knows what Frank McCourt wants to do and what his strategy is in trying to sign Manny. By all accounts including his own it seems Manny is gone. It sure doesn't inspire a'lot of confidence by reading McCourt's comments.
I have read a few comments that support Ned Colleti for not trading away the young players. In the words of Frank McCourt, that really is a "no brainer". I don't think he deserves too much credit for that. I also don't think he deserves credit for the Manny trade being that Manny forced the trade and Boston management was desperate to get rid of him to the point that they even paid the remaining salary. Anybody could have pull that off.
Posted by: dcerros | October 16, 2008 at 09:52 PM
K brother's,
Here are my answer's
1- DeWITT left the second most men on base. Are you honestly telling me that KENT and GARCIAPARRA would hav been that bad? THE SECOND MOST MEN LEFT ON BASE? You think Kent and Nomar would have been that bad?
2 - When Kent came back from the disabled list, he had for striaght game's with a hit, including a home run! So he was fine offensively......And Nomar had a couple game's toward's the end of the season where he hit a home run. So they were fine......and if nothing else.....im not sure if they would have done as bad as DeWitt
3 - As for Kent's defense, are you sure he was that bad? Cus TOrre brought him in twice (once in the last came) to play in the field during these playoff's. If he is that bad, why did Torre bring him in TWICE?...........As for Nomar come on.....He has played Third....Short....FIrst.....why can't he play second?.........
4 - Even if im wrong and there that bad defensively.....would you rather have ok defense with better offense (KENT, GARCIAPARRA)......or better defense and not so good offense? (DeWITT)?
5 - If your going to bring in Kent the way Torre did the last game. Why not bring him in BEFORE DeWitt goes to bat. I mean he already is having a bad series, he already grounded into one double play, so if your going to bring in KENT anyway, why would you bring him in AFTER DeWitt already had that at bat? Why not do it before? There is no double switch. You just take out DeWitt and put in Kent
Now as far as Martin goes.......the guy left THE MOST MEN ON BASE.....let me repeat that....THE MOST MEN ON BASE.......I don't care how bad you think CASEY BLAKE and EITHER ARE DOING, do you honestly think they would leave THE MOST MEN ON BASE? Either and Casey Blake are better option's then Martin at 4th.....
And by the way. It's unfair to say Blake has been doing bad cus Grady Little, I mean Joe Torre, has kept him so low in the lineup. Come on sometime's when you bat someone that low, it's hard to get it going.......and by the way.....Don't agree?......Well how do you explain the fact that when Grady Little, I mean Joe Torre, moved Casey up in the lineup (like he did in the last game) he didn't do so bad?
K brother's I don't get your logic on some of this.....now iv'e typed alot answering alot of your point's. Am I wrong anywhere here?
Posted by: Aryan | October 16, 2008 at 10:16 PM
DeWitt is probably the unluckiest Dodger. He was hitting line drives the whole series.
And haven't you made that post before? 3 times or so? This post isn't really about that at all.
Posted by: DBrim | October 16, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Aryan-
Nomar could only play first base for any length of time. Healthwise, that's about all he could do. Kent, defensively, was unable to cover any ground. They were both limited. If you notice, they put Kent in... and then pulled him to move Casey Blake to second. With a ground ball staff, I'd say it was more important to have DeWitt on the field. In the first three games, he managed to drive home critical runs, so he was productive despite a lack of hits. (Not saying he was awesome, just that he still chipped in.) Feel free to disagree.
Kent didn't have a hit in the playoffs, and Nomar was pretty good against the Phillies (a couple bad Ks), but couldn't do much else but play first. So would you sit Loney, one of the only guys hitting, and a far better 1B than Nomar? Both hit some balls hard, but so did DeWitt on the second double play. It happens.
As for the inning where Kent went in, the idea was to have both bat, because DeWitt/Kent as a PH is a better combination than Kent/whomever, unless you'd like to burn Nomar AND Kent in the fifth, leaving very few options for the rest.
As for Blake, no I don't agree. He's hit sixth or seventh and done well, hit sixth or seventh and done poorly. I really don't think it makes a difference. Against the Cubs he had a great game hitting eighth. Lineups need to have balance. Take everyone doing well and shove them to the top of the order, and you basically give the opposition a break past the five spot (not that the Dodgers had five productive hitters through the series).
As for Martin, I already said I wouldn't have minded moving him out of the four spot, I was explaining the logic of why. Could Blake have left the most guys on? Probably not, but he certainly could have been close. It's an unanswerable question. Ethier wasn't hitting either, so I'm not sure how much better an option he'd have been. Meanwhile, they tried putting him in a spot where he did very well previously.
Bottom line? Guys didn't hit. Very few players in the lineup were productive. Manny was great, Loney was solid, and other guys had some moments. That was about it. Add in the pitching, and the Dodgers just didn't play well enough to win.
I was plenty critical of Torre in the playoffs where I felt it was necessary, but to me it feels like you're bending every poor performance to make it Torre's fault.
Clearly we don't agree on some of these things, and I certainly understand your points- the CAPS HELP MAKE IT EASY TO PICK OUT THE BIG ONES. I GET THAT YOU DON'T LIKE JOE TORRE. I don't think he had a very good series, but the players on the field didn't either, and ultimately the players play the game. Guys played poorly at inopportune times, but Nomar and Kent really weren't viable options to make large, nine inning impacts on the series.
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | October 16, 2008 at 11:35 PM
K BROTHER'S,
1 - To say Kent had a low average make's no sense becuase he was rarley used! You can't critique a guy for having a low average when he keep's coming off the bench and is used sparingly.......and again........do you honestly think he would have been worst then DEWIITT offensively?
2 - TORRE brought in Kent twice! You didnt address the fact that he brough him in another game (during the playoff's) and kept him in there for a while. If he was so bad defensively why did he bring him in twice? And during that other time he kept him in defensively for more then an inning.........so if Kent can't play defense how do you explain that he brough him in twice and one time it was for MORE THEN AN INNING?
3 - I still don't get your answer about SUBBING KENT FOR DEWITT.......if your going to bring in KEnt for DEWITT......why would you bring him in AFTER DeWitt had an at bat? Why not before?
4 - About CASEY BLAKE, you know most manager's put their power hitter's between 3 -6 for a reason.......im really surprised that u think a guy who hit 20 home run's is no big deal to put him 8th.......I mean iwhen you bat that low, you don't come up as many time's during a game.....and when you bat that low you don't get the same amount of chance's to bring in RBI's......THATS BASEBALL 101........if Blake would bat higher, he might have come to bat more time's, and he might have had more chance's to bring in RBI's...
And you know that Casey Blake would not have left the SECOND MOST GUY'S ON BASE........K Brother's are you kidding me? He hit over 20 home run's. He's a veteran precense. And.most manager's put their best power hitter's 3-6 for a reason, and batting him low it's like taking the bat out of his hand's. There is a difference between batting 4-6, and batting 7 or 8!
5 - You say Casey Blake didn't do much better? The first two game's he didn't do so well. The third game and fourth game (when they moved him higher) he did slightly better) check the boxscore if you want..........and again.....maybe Blake would have done crappy.....who know's....but you do the best you can.......and batting your power hitter's so low makes no sense cus you want them coming to bat as many time's as possible, and you want them to have the most chance's of bringing in RBI's......Batting your power hitter so low is not the best you can do
6 - By the way even the guy's on FOx were saying how TOrre kept sticking with DeWitt, and even Jim Rome (whom I talked to) agreed about DeWitt sucking so come on!!
7 - The reason im still arguinging with you about Martin, is becuase although you agree he probably shouldn't have batted 4th, you seem to still give it a pass like it's not a big deal.....again BASEBALL 101 you put your power hitter's between 3-6, and he is not a power hitter......
And by the way, during this season he never really did that good between 2-5 anyway, so by experience alone im not sure why you tell me this thing about having a balance becuase again.....because this year.....he didn't do that well between 2-5 so Torre should know that by experience.............
And anyway......when your number 4 guy suckss that can be an issue..........Kemp was doing better, Blake was doing better, EIther was better.........even if you think they werent that much better then martin (which they were) there stilll more of a threat!.....I mean Ryan Howard was crappy , but he is a threat because u never know when he could do better........im sorry K brother's if Casey Blake is batting 8th, or Kemp is batting 7th, then it's going to be harder for them to do better in those spots as opposed to batting in the power spots......it makes a difference where you bat........And if BLAKE and KEMP are batting so low they might not do as well as compared to batting higher! Unless your like Barry Bond's or your as bad as Andrew Jone's, it make's a difference where you bat!
BASEBALL 101: You put your power hitters between 3-6 because you want them coming to bat MORE time's and you want them to have the best chance of bringing in RBI's!......if nothing else can we agree on that? Batting people higher they might come to bat MORE TIME'S during a game and have MORE OPPORTUNITIES to bring in RBI's,.......and hey........they might have better at bat's batting higher as compared to batting lower..........how am I wrong here people come on!
Posted by: Aryan | October 17, 2008 at 08:29 AM
I wish the Dodgers would go back to playing the Dodger Way. For years, this team has played fundamentally poor baseball and doesn't do the little things in order to win. More, until Manny, they didn't have that winning attitude. Tampa Bay has it. The Dodgers used to. A long time ago.
Posted by: Rufus Leaking | October 17, 2008 at 08:32 AM
Laughing at L.A.
Laughing at L.A.
Giants fans laugh at L.A.
Boy, did you choke!
The Giants have tons of young players and will dominate next year. Plus, we have freed up tons of dough and will replace Bonds' presence in the lineup with....MANNY! Oh yes, Manny will be a Giant bomber helping us CRUSH the Dodgers.
Posted by: Tim McCuddahy | October 17, 2008 at 08:40 AM
Teddy says:
"Pay the man his money!!!"
http://www.kickingwind.com/assets4/kgb44.jpg
Posted by: DodgerBlueBalls | October 17, 2008 at 08:44 AM
Aryan-
You didn't read carefully. I did explain why you'd bat DeWitt, then Kent. It's because they had to hit for the pitcher next. Burn Kent to hit for DeWitt, then you need to use another PH for the pitcher. Three players for a two player switch in the fifth inning, when one PH is already gone. Not a good idea, esp. when the DeWitt/Kent option is better than Kent/______.
I get your point. And we talked about Martin in the four hole, with both of us saying we'd have had Loney there. As for Blake, the Dodgers scored 20 runs in three games with him batting at the bottom of the order. Clearly it can be done.
DeWitt didn't hit well, but repeat after me: Jeff Kent wasn't mobile enough to play nine innings of effective defense. That matters. I GET YOU DON'T AGREE, BECAUSE YOU REPEAT YOURSELF 28 TIMES IN CAPS. But the problem wasn't simply DeWitt, it was Furcal, Ethier, Martin. Kemp didn't hit well early in the series, neither did Blake. They had failure up and down the lineup. To compare anyone the Dodgers had in their lineup not named Manny to Ryan Howard is kind of silly. A different order could have made a difference, but I don't think it would have made THE difference b/c fundamentally the Dodgers were outplayed. Hitters can hit no matter where they are in the lineup.
I get your point. On some things we agree, on others we don't and won't. The difference is I'm not ranting and repeating myself ad nauseum. I'm not going to go around and around with you on this anymore. You don't discuss, you rant. Perfect for call in shows.
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | October 17, 2008 at 08:46 AM
BK:
This is not the first time you've criticized the MCCourt Dodgers for its inability to articulate a message. But I think Gold Star is right--you're mistrusting him for not telling us the usual lies that most owners do to keep the fans on their side.
I agree that MCCourt has a message problem, but I don't yearn for more lies. I don't long for players who say "It's not about the money."
Everything in baseball is about the money. Derek Lowe isn't going to give the Dodgers a home town discount, nor is Manny,, unless they see hat they'll make more endorsement dollars here than in Milwaukee, St. Louis, or Green Bay.
Manny is going to want outrageous sums of money based on his .533 average in the NLCS. And if he were 26 instead of 36, or even 32, I'd say pay the man his money. But the guy has a history of being a bad citizen wherever he goes. And he is represented by Scott Boras, who is legendary for screwing unsuspecting owners like Tom Hicks. Manny is going to want at least 4 years, which makes him 40 by the end of that deal. He's already a below average outfielder. By 2012, we'll all be thinking how good the Juan Pierre deal looked in comparison to a 4-year/$100 million deal for Ramirez.
Posted by: SaMo | October 17, 2008 at 08:50 AM
SaMo-
That's not really what I was trying to get at. My criticism isn't the foundation of his argument in the quotes above, but in the delivery. To me, it felt like he was trying to protect himself from the wrath of fans by making it very clear that "Hey, he could leave and it won't be my fault! Not my fault! He's got to want to stay a Dodger!"
Self preservation wasn't called for, and when he seems to be setting up fans for Manny to go an hour after the season ends, it feeds into all the negative perceptions of ownership. Most fans understand that there are a great number of factors that contribute to whether or not Ramirez returns, many of which are out of the team's control.
He had a lot of trouble even admitting the team wants him back- again, I'm assuming they do- but was very comfortable speaking at length about how he could leave for reasons beyond his control. I asked him a very direct question- all things being equal, you can control the team's interest: Is the organization interested in doing what they can to bring him back? Again, he talked about how Manny could go, they want guys who want to be Dodgers, etc.
A simple, "Yes, we're going to try." would have felt better to me. I'm not asking for ownership to lie (unless, of course, "we're going to try" is a lie, in which case LA has larger problems in ownership than honesty), but for McCourt to operate with more confidence and self-assurance. My post was designed to talk about how, like in other times before, McCourt made it hard for Dodger fans to have faith in him. He continues to have PR and message problems, obscuring what I think has been, if you take the noise away, a pretty good run as owner since those horrible first year/months.
As for the larger points- the merits of signing Manny- I agree with you that there are reasons to worry (I'm glad you focused on age rather than behavior). I think if you sign him for four years, you do it with the understanding that the fourth year could be a waste, one where you're forced to move him to an AL team in need of a DH. The hope, though, is the first two, hopefully three, years are filled with some serious production. He's an ordinary fielder, but assuming he keeps hitting, and there's no reason to believe he'll stop anytime soon, he'll still have incredible value to the team.
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | October 17, 2008 at 09:28 AM
If it takes globs of money and years to sign Manny (and it will), then doing so would be a mistake. Better to spend the money on pitching, a cheaper (but not cheap) bat, and on other needs. If Torre is serious about wanting to move DeWitt back to third, then Orlando Hudson should be a target of interest to the Dodgers. Be it C.C. Sabbathia, a trade for another pitcher (Peavy has been mentioned, but at what cost, I don't know), the Dodgers definitely need to add another starting pitcher, assuming that Lowe (and probably Penny) leaves. And there are other bats besides Manny (the ones that come immediately to mind are Burrell, Dunn, and even Texeira, if either he or Loney can play in left).
Posted by: Brooklyn Dodger | October 17, 2008 at 10:04 AM
BK:
I hear you, but I don't think McCourt is ever going to be a great communicator. I'm more concerned, however, with his actions than his words. If he makes good signings but doesn't convey a great message, it doesn't really mattter. That's far preferable to a guy who talks a good game but continues to put a lousy product out there.
As for Manny, I didn't dwell on behavior, but I very well could have. Manny has been a bad egg throughout his career, the baseball equivalent of Terrell Owens. We've yet to see bad Manny, but lett's not forget that this is the same guy who threw the Red Sox traveling secretary to the ground, and whose teammates asked to have him traded. It's one thing for him to be a good citizen for 2 months. 4 years is another story.
There's no question he can rake. But if he weren't wearing LA on his do-rag, would Dodger fans like having him around? JD Drew has turned out to be a clutch ballplayer for the Red Sox, but I still don't like the guy.
As for Juan Pierre, way to demean your trade value by letting the world know you want out. It probably wasn't any secret,, but you definitely didn't help things. Who is it that you think has a need for a leadoff hitter who can't get on base and a center fielder who can't stop runners from going 1st to 3rd?
Then again, maybe the Padres are dumb enough to take him.
Posted by: SaMo | October 17, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Tim
THANK YOU! I couldn't help but laugh out loud at your post and I sure needed a good laugh.
You are a funny guy!
Have a great off season.
Posted by: Andy B | October 17, 2008 at 11:35 AM
i don't think that was the real Aryan... now we have an Aryan impersonator, it's a very strange world.
Posted by: benzo jones | October 17, 2008 at 03:17 PM
BK
Thank you for a insightful opinion on Manny's coming back to the Dodgers. I appreciate your feel of what Frank was saying. It is obvious to me, based on your postings that Frank was just covering his ass with the fans in case he decides that it is too expensive to keep Manny. There is no question that Frank should have indicated that the Dodgers would meet any other offers for Manny and the the issue on Manny and Boras. I think Manny more than showed what he can do at crunch time. Again, Thanks for being candid and insightful. I appreciate it.
Package
Posted by: Package | October 17, 2008 at 04:39 PM