Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - BBFL: Tighter Than Ever

There's little change at the top of the standings, where Snellville maintains a big lead, and yours truly clings nervously to second place, but twelve teams are now bunched within ten games of third place!

In the feature match among many good ones last week, Baird Brain scored a decisive 9-3 win over the mighty Gashouse gang to regain third spot for owner-GM-skipper Jurgen Maas. Jordan's Sub-Urban Shockers brought Billie's Bashers back to the pack and moved into championship round contention with a 9-2 romp. Despite losing 6-5 to the Eastern Shore Birds, my staggering Walrus gained ground, relative to the leaders. Spicol's Red Mosquitos continued their climb in the standings, taking over fifth place with an 8-3 win over Mebion Glyndwr that dropped Gwyn's team from fourth all the way to ninth place. Jonny German's squad thoroughly mashed Geoff's Grumpy Group; the 12-0 final moved K-Town from tenth into a tie for sixth with AGF. The Chatsworth Halos advanced from 14th to tenth (and over the .500 mark) with a 10-2 defeat of the Moscow Rats. We are headed for some high drama as this playoff race continues.

With 14 weeks completed and just eight remaining in the regular season, here are the standings:

 #  Team                     W-L-T     Win %   GB 
 1  gashouse gorillas      106-54-8    .655    -- 
 2  Toronto Walrus          97-64-7    .598    9.5 
 3  Baird Brain             88-70-10   .554   17 
 4  Billies Bashers         87-72-9    .545   18.5 
 5  Red Mosquitos           85-72-11   .539   19.5 
 6  K-Town Mashers          87-76-5    .533   20.5 
 7  AGF                     87-76-5    .533   20.5 
 8  Sub-Urban Shockers      82-75-11   .521   22.5 
 9  Mebion Glyndwr          86-79-3    .521   22.5 
10  Chatsworth Halos        82-80-6    .506   25 
11  Jicks Rays              80-79-9    .503   25.5 
12  Eastern Shore Birds     79-81-8    .494   27 
13  Reykjavik Fish Candy    79-81-8    .494   27 
14  Nation Builders         80-82-6    .494   27 
15  Springfield Isotopes    74-86-8    .464   32 
16  Moscow Rats             69-90-9    .438   36.5 
17  Thunderbirds            70-92-6    .435   37 
18  Hannibals Cannibals     65-91-12   .423   39 
19  Garces_not_on_roids     63-97-8    .399   43 
20  Geoffs Grumpy Group     57-106-5   .354   50.5

My team is in big trouble if Matt Morris doesn't get healthy. After several extra days of rest, he pitched five mediocre innings. Like all Jays fans, I'm worried about Carlos Delgado's knee. Facing the red-hot Mashers this week, with a roster full of question marks, I am hoping not to get crushed.

Posted by Coach on Monday, July 07 2003 @ 01:19 AM EDT.

BBFL: Tighter Than Ever | 41 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

_AGF - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 02:29 PM EDT (#13694) #

Once again a terrible offensive week, but I took 5 of the pitching categories to get a draw. With 1 draw and 3 losses in the last four weeks I feel fortunate that I am still right in the midst of things. It is time for Hilenbrand, Griffey, and Gonzales to wake up and for Lilly and Lidle to straighten up. Lilly and Lidle are curiusly similar. Not only have they both occupied the Oakland #4 role, and have parallel stats:

ERA WHIP K BB
Lidle 5.68 1.38 75 29
Lilly 5.06 1.37 79 35

Both of them have also refused to listen to the Oakland pitching coach Rick Peterson...with terrible results.

One question for the commissioners: Can we make trades after the season is over, but before next year's draft? Or is the upcoming trading deadline it, until after the draft?

_Mick - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 02:32 PM EDT (#13695) #

You mean American League All-Star pitcher Eddie Guardado?

_Jonny German - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 02:56 PM EDT (#13697) #

Roto Summary - Week 14

									
		R	RBI	SB	AVG	OBP	SLG	Hitting	
1	Baird	14	5	5	3	2	4	3	
2	Jicks	1	1	15	6	4	1	1	
3	Thunder	8	13	2	4	7	13	8	
4	Red Mos	1	6	5	5	10	8	4	
5	K-Town	5	2	10	9	14	3	7	
6	Nation	7	4	8	13	13	11	12	
7	Mebion	3	6	11	10	11	9	10	
8	Sub-Urb	3	9	5	10	8	7	6	
9	Gashous	5	2	2	8	9	6	2	
10	Eastern	11	15	1	13	5	10	11	
11	Reykjav	18	12	11	1	1	5	9	
11	Toronto	13	10	11	7	5	15	13	
13	Chatsw.	12	8	16	15	19	14	15	
14	Hannib.	20	14	16	19	18	18	19	
15	Garces	9	10	11	2	3	2	5	
16	Spring.	9	18	16	16	16	12	16	
17	AGF	15	15	8	12	15	17	14	
18	Billie	16	17	20	18	12	19	18	
19	Geoffs	17	20	16	20	20	16	20	
20	Moscow	19	18	2	17	17	20	17

									
		IP	W	SV	ERA	WHIP	K/BB	Pitchng	
1	Baird	14	4	3	3	5	6	4	
2	Jicks	12	8	1	10	7	5	8	
3	Thunder	1	2	13	5	3	1	1	
4	Red Mos	5	11	3	9	10	4	6	
5	K-Town	7	8	11	6	1	6	5	
6	Nation	3	1	13	7	2	2	2	
7	Mebion	8	2	11	4	4	13	6	
8	Sub-Urb	10	4	18	12	14	14	14	
9	Gashous	19	18	7	14	16	9	17	
10	Eastern	15	15	3	11	12	10	10	
11	Reykjav	9	11	13	17	13	19	16	
11	Toronto	16	11	18	1	8	15	12	
13	Chatsw.	4	11	1	13	11	11	9	
14	Hannib.	2	8	3	8	8	3	3	
15	Garces	18	20	7	20	20	20	20	
16	Spring.	6	4	7	16	17	17	11	
17	AGF	11	15	13	18	17	12	18	
18	Billie	20	4	13	2	15	16	13	
19	Geoffs	13	18	18	15	6	8	15	
20	Moscow	17	15	7	19	19	18	19

_Jonny German - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 02:57 PM EDT (#13698) #

Roto Standings - End of Week 14

									
		R	RBI	SB	AVG	OBP	SLG	Hitting	
1	Gashous	4	2	1	8	12	1	1	
1	Baird	1	3	10	6	15	6	5	
3	Toronto	5	1	16	5	4	5	3	
3	Mebion	6	4	17	2	3	3	2	
5	Nation	2	7	5	4	8	15	5	
6	Jicks	10	8	19	13	7	8	11	
7	Billie	12	6	18	7	10	2	8	
8	AGF	7	9	4	14	18	16	13	
9	Chatsw.	8	5	13	16	19	13	15	
9	Reykjav	11	14	8	1	1	4	4	
11	K-Town	15	12	10	12	14	7	14	
12	Red Mos	8	16	2	10	5	19	9	
13	Sub-Urb	3	10	3	9	9	11	7	
14	Garces	14	13	15	3	6	9	9	
15	Thunder	16	18	14	18	16	18	19	
16	Eastern	17	15	7	17	13	12	16	
16	Moscow	13	11	10	11	11	10	12	
18	Geoffs	19	19	20	15	2	14	17	
19	Hannib.	20	20	5	20	20	20	20	
20	Spring.	17	17	9	19	17	17	18

									
		IP	W	SV	ERA	WHIP	K/BB	Pitchng	
1	Gashous	20	20	8	1	4	5	10	
1	Baird	9	17	11	2	2	4	2	
3	Toronto	12	18	2	16	5	3	7	
3	Mebion	14	2	10	5	7	19	8	
5	Nation	17	13	13	9	1	1	5	
6	Jicks	3	4	3	4	3	14	1	
7	Billie	13	8	1	8	14	17	11	
8	AGF	4	6	15	11	12	9	8	
9	Chatsw.	6	5	5	13	13	12	5	
9	Reykjav	2	7	20	20	20	20	19	
11	K-Town	5	10	7	15	11	13	11	
12	Red Mos	11	16	9	10	17	10	15	
13	Sub-Urb	18	3	18	14	19	18	20	
14	Garces	15	8	17	18	15	8	17	
15	Thunder	1	1	16	17	10	2	3	
16	Eastern	19	18	4	3	8	15	14	
16	Moscow	10	14	14	12	16	16	18	
18	Geoffs	16	10	18	7	6	6	13	
19	Hannib.	8	15	6	6	9	7	4	
20	Spring.	7	12	11	19	18	11	16

_Geoff North - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 03:42 PM EDT (#13699) #

Is your team close, but not quite in it? Does it need that little extra push over the top into contention? If you're going to play my team, have no fear! The Grumpy Group will do its best to oblige your needs and will roll over like the whipped dog it is, and probably hand you a majority of the categories! Probably enough to vault you into contention!

Ugh.

I'm in sell mode now, looking for keepers for next season. I'll consider all offers. If I've been slow to respond to your trade proposals before, please accept my apologies, I'll be sure to respond now in a timely fashion.

I'm most interested in outfielders and middle infielders.

Mulder, Miller, Wells, LoDuca, Palmeiro, Olerud, Catolanatto, etc, all are available for the right price.

_snellville jone - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 03:46 PM EDT (#13700) #

This week really helped me develop some new managing skills. I've come up with a new theory called "Never Pitch Denny Neagle and a Detroit Starter in the Same Week", in which I will never pitch Denny Neagle and a Detroit starter in the same week. I'm not sure that following this would have held off the Brains, as their offense took all of the rate categories, so I'm working on resolving this by developing a theory tenatively titled, "Adam Kennedy Sucks".

Should we make trades after the season, I propose we hold our winter meetings in sunny Rio de Janeiro.

_AGF - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 04:46 PM EDT (#13702) #

geoff: Is Corey Patterson a keeper? In any case look forward to some proposal from me before the end of the day....

_Spicol - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 04:50 PM EDT (#13703) #

You mean the Corey Patterson with the torn ACL who won't play for the rest of the season?

_King Rat - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 05:38 PM EDT (#13704) #

Having been thumped again, I'm starting to consider trading for next year. I'll probably wait at least one more week before opening the Moscow Rats clearance sale for business. However, in the short term, I need a corner infielder. Any of my pitchers can be had for the right guy, though, as always, the price rises in relation to the quality of the pitcher.

_Jurgen - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 06:07 PM EDT (#13705) #

....the price rises in relation to the quality of the pitcher?

What kind of scam operation are you running?

Coach - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 06:17 PM EDT (#13706) #

I'm not objecting to the idea, but my concern about open trading all winter is that some owners may not be able to pay close attention the whole time. I'd suggest no trading from the deadline until a specified time next spring. Perhaps we can designate a pre-draft trading window -- for example, from a month before the draft until one week before. The "winter meetings" (chat room version; Rio might be too distracting) could be an optional event at the start of that period.

A change would require a new rule or at least an amendment, which means 75% approval. I don't think anybody intended to ban off-season trading, but it isn't addressed in our constitution, and as far as Yahoo is concerned, we will be starting an entirely new league next year. Everyone's "keepers" will be the top four players in their pre-rankings for the 2004 draft, because after this year's playoffs, our "rosters" no longer exist. If someone keeps track of approved trades, and everyone pre-ranks correctly, there's no reason it can't be done.

Proposals? Objections? If anyone has ideas for other rule changes, this is a good time and place to discuss them. I'd be in favour of a fifth keeper.

_AGF - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 06:32 PM EDT (#13707) #

I would be in favor of designating a RF, LF and CF spot in addition to one open OF spot. This would increase the managing role of the team and yahoo already provides the info for us. Obviously, this might alter the value of some current players (ie. more valuable CF) but it would also increase the challenge of assembling a team.

Spicol: Yeah, the injured Corey Patterson. The question in regards to him was whether he would keep up his pace (and I guess we wont know now). But if he had, and there were no signs to the opposite, he could be a keeper. Young, average, homeruns, steals, and a CF (see above:-)).

_Justin B. - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 06:43 PM EDT (#13708) #

I like the idea of a 5th keeper (growing attached to certain key guys is one of the best parts of fantasy sports IMO), and I also like the LF,CF,RF designations.

On the trade front, Santana has finally been put into the rotation, so I would be willing to move Benson, Affeldt, Thomson, and possibly early-season free agent Sidney Ponson for the right hitter.

Pepper Moffatt - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 06:56 PM EDT (#13709) #

http://economics.about.com
Nobody has mentioned the most important development of last week:

My team finally earned a save.

Mike

_King Rat - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 07:09 PM EDT (#13710) #

I would be in favour of adding a fifth keeper. I also like the idea of offseason trades.

Jurgen: Judging by my record in trades this year, an extremely poorly executed one.

_Jordan - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 07:28 PM EDT (#13711) #

On the edge of contention, facing off against the best in the league just before the All-Star break, seven days that could make or break the year. The Jays? Naw, the Sub-Urban Shockers, who finally get to square off against the 600-lb Gorillas. All hands on deck....

_Spicol - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 07:55 PM EDT (#13712) #

I'm in favour of a 5th keeper.

I don't particularly like the LF, CF, RF designations, only because Yahoo is so damn slow at updating positions (15 games!) and that can end up being a big factor. I wouldn't object to it...I'm just not a fan.

I understand Coach's point about owners not paying attention during the offseason but don't want to eliminate offseason trading all together. How about a small trading window right after the offseason, maybe one week, managed here. Then, a couple of weeks of trading before keepers need to be announced. Since keepers need to be announced one week before the 2004 draft, that would be 3 full weeks of pre-draft trading.

_dp - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 09:31 PM EDT (#13713) #

Fire sale on the Cannibals begins today...

Everyone is for sale. I'd like to keep Hudson, but he's expendable in the right deal. If you think Loiza's for real, he can be had for a quality hitter. I've got I-Rod for anyone looking for help at catcher, but the way he's hit, he won't come cheap. Could we please set the number of keepers for sure though? This might affect some deals I'd make.

Fire away.

Coach - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 10:04 PM EDT (#13714) #

Good point, dp, about deciding ASAP on the keepers. Remember, because of Yahoo draft limitations, it would not be "up to" five; each team would have to keep exactly five. Spicol's suggestion of a one-week postseason trading period and two weeks of trading prior to the final announcement of keepers is better than mine. On that issue, let's decide first if we want it in some form, and if so, we can sort out the details later. I'm fine with more specific OF position requirements next year, mostly because I have a decent CF keeper -- they might be scarce.

I will send a league-wide e-mail to vote yes or no on the following proposals:

1) Changing the rule to five keepers
2) Off-season trading
3) Changing the position requirements to LF, CF, RF and OF

That doesn't preclude further discussion here, or even campaigning, but you don't have to make your votes public. On each suggestion, 15 "yes" votes are required to make a change, 6 "no" votes will maintain the status quo. If you don't receive the e-mail, please let me know.

_Jonny German - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 10:04 PM EDT (#13715) #

Sorry for not catching that save Mike. The updated Saves race:

Reykjavik 1
Geoff's 2
Sub-Urban 2

Garces just droppped out of contention with a 3 save week, leaving him at 7 for the season.

Geoff is running away with the other "Punted Category" race, leading his closest competitor Jick's Rays by a 27 - 37 count in Stolen Bases.

I'm not against off-season trading, but I'm wondering a) Is anybody going to want the job of keeping track of the rosters? and b) Won't everybody's hands be tied since there will only be 4 or 5 spots that matter, making it somewhat pointless?

I'm in favour of 5 keepers also. Question: Will this screw up the draft order, or is it going to be random anyways?

One change I would really like to see for next year is a shorter lag on trades... by the time a trade gets processed, I forget why I made the trade in the first place. The "Trade Reject Time" is currently set at 2 days, I think we should make that 1 day.

Pepper Moffatt - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 10:08 PM EDT (#13716) #

http://economics.about.com
Geoff is running away with the other "Punted Category" race, leading his closest competitor Jick's Rays by a 27 - 37 count in Stolen Bases.

The funny thing is that I didn't intend to punt *any* categories, particularly saves, as I drafted Robb Nen and BH Kim in the first few rounds. Nenn never threw a single pitch this year, and until recently Kim was only pitching as a starter. Now he's in the pen, I should get some saves, but now I'll be punting wins and IP.

I thought I had a great team at the beginning of the year, but injuries have just killed my team. Nenn, Byrd, Jeter, Fullmer, and on and on.

Mike

_Spicol - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 10:13 PM EDT (#13717) #

I'm not against off-season trading, but I'm wondering a) Is anybody going to want the job of keeping track of the rosters? and b) Won't everybody's hands be tied since there will only be 4 or 5 spots that matter, making it somewhat pointless?

a) I volunteer. (I'm going to regret this, aren't I?)
b) It won't be pointless since those with excess players that could be considered keepers might want to trade with those that have fewer keepers for one SUPER keeper. Make sense?

Coach - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 10:26 PM EDT (#13718) #

Will this screw up the draft order, or is it going to be random anyways?

The draft is supposed to be in reverse order of this year's regular season standings. However, if we go to five keepers, the first "real" picks will be in the sixth round, so the order should exactly mirror the standings -- that way, whoever finishes last this year will have the first pick in Round 6.

Regarding the time it takes to process trades, here's a suggestion. The Commish (me) has a manual override -- I've almost clicked "Allow" instead of "OK" on more than one occasion. When there is an objection, the committee needs the full two days to consider it. If no objection is received within 24 hours, either on the Yahoo board, here or by e-mail, I don't see why a trade shouldn't be approved before the full waiting period.

_Jonny German - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 10:50 PM EDT (#13719) #

Sounds good Coach. I'll suggest you forewarn anybody who wishes to play in the league that you reserve the right to go on vacation and/or have your cable randomly go out for a couple days - so no whining if a trade doesn't get the fast track treatment.

I'm concluding from your answer that you can manually set the draft order. Last place team drafting first makes sense to me.

_Jurgen - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 11:10 PM EDT (#13720) #

1) Changing the rule to five keepers

Last place team drafting first makes sense to me.

I agree.

Although... dealing away Schmidt was partly "justified" by thinking there would be only 4 keepers per team.

Now I'm not sure how I'll vote.

And, besides, maybe winning the league should earn you the right to draft first?

2) Off-season trading

Not a bad idea, although it's probably best to set up Winter Meetings to keep it somewhat under control (and allow league-wide reviews) as has been suggested.

3) Changing the position requirements to LF, CF, RF and OF

I'm vehemently opposed to this, as I was when we first drafted the constitution. (I even wanted to do away with specific positions and merely use 2 CI and 2 MI.) More position flexibility is better than less.

_jason - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 11:25 PM EDT (#13721) #

J.P. was on the CBC on some sort of news segment which I didnt really catch. Did anyone else see it?

_dp - Monday, July 07 2003 @ 11:52 PM EDT (#13722) #

This is a dumb question, but "there are no stupid questions, only stupid people"....
What if you only want to keep 4 players? In other words, what if people in the available pool are stronger than those on your roster? Do you have the option of keeping only three and getting 2 picks before the draft starts?

I'm in favor of 5 keepers. I'd like RF, LF, CF, except yahoo's 15 game thing means that would suck (Craig Wilson still isn't qualified at C), so I say no. Winter trades are fine, but I like the idea of limiting them to a week before the draft.

That's it.

_Justin B. - Tuesday, July 08 2003 @ 01:31 AM EDT (#13723) #

The CBC segment was a basic introduction into the world of sabermetrics. Considering the source, it was pretty well done. There was a brief appearance by Bill James (or was it Coach?), and the main focus was on player evaluation. It was quite decent until the end when the journalist compared his "on-air average" to Delgado's on-base average.

_Jicks Rays - Tuesday, July 08 2003 @ 08:28 AM EDT (#13724) #

I vote yes to everything with these thoughts. Trading during the winter may only help the better teams. Example being, if one team only has 4 possible keepers and another stronger team has 6 possible keepers, the stronger team can trade 2 weaker keepers for a much stronger keeper. This will even out the possible keepers, but weaken the draft pool for the start of next season. Also, keepers will be kept on this years categories, right. If we decide to change any cats for next year can we discuss them before we start trading keepers?

Coach - Tuesday, July 08 2003 @ 08:45 AM EDT (#13725) #

a brief appearance by Bill James (or was it Coach?)

Even I have to admit the resemblance; it's a lot better than looking like Bud Selig.

I watched most of the CBC piece, after a friend called to alert me it was on, but thought it was a terrible segment by the usual standards of The National. The attempted humourous ending failed miserably. Keith Law was portrayed as some shadowy figure, reluctant to divulge his secrets, and his years as a respected author at Prospectus were omitted from his background. Including interviews with the participants in a fantasy baseball draft struck me as a deliberate ploy to denigrate the success of the Boston, Toronto and Oakland front offices by comparing them to Roto geeks. Using Joe Carter's famous HR as the conclusion suggested that James, Epstein, Ricciardi and Beane are somehow barking up the wrong tree, while conveniently ignoring the AL standings.

It was obvious that this piece had been in the can since spring training, so perhaps the recent kerfuffle created by the Star made someone at CBC think it was timely. They were wrong.

Coach - Tuesday, July 08 2003 @ 09:14 AM EDT (#13726) #

Do you have the option of keeping only three and getting 2 picks before the draft starts?

No. You must keep exactly four, or five if we approve the proposed change.

...if one team only has 4 possible keepers and another stronger team has 6 possible keepers, the stronger team can trade 2 weaker keepers for a much stronger keeper. This will even out the possible keepers, but weaken the draft pool for the start of next season.

That's correct, Rick. Either 80, or 100, of the best players will be unavailable when the "real" drafting begins. However, some teams will be offering 2-for-1 keeper trades either way. If I can get an even better starter from someone lower in the standings for Matt Morris and Bernie Williams (contact the Walrus front office if interested) that sounds like a win-win deal for both teams. The issue of whether I have to make such a trade in the next couple of weeks, or can wait until the offseason, seems more significant to me.

Nobody has suggested changing the categories, which seem to be working well in HtH. The e-mail poll is inconclusive, with eight replies to come; thanks for the quick response. None of the proposed changes has unanimous support, proving again that you can't please everyone.

_Geoff North - Tuesday, July 08 2003 @ 10:16 AM EDT (#13727) #

Howdy Coach, if you sent out email to the league, I did not get it, please try again at my yahoo address? (grakk_2000@yahoo.com)

thanks

_Spicol - Tuesday, July 08 2003 @ 11:23 AM EDT (#13728) #

Mike Bordick has been deactivated by Yahoo but I can't find the transaction anywhere. Anyone know what's up?

Coach - Tuesday, July 08 2003 @ 11:42 AM EDT (#13729) #

Bordick's on bereavement leave while his son has surgery. Back in a few days.

_Halo Brad - Tuesday, July 08 2003 @ 09:40 PM EDT (#13730) #

Thanks for all the discussion. It helps this avid baseball fan but somewhat of a novice fantasy player. Still in favor of offseason trading, either in a short period just after the current season and just before the next, or at one specific "winter meetings". Still ok with 5 kepers but we need to decide soon. The more thought I give it, the less I like the RF, CF, LF designations, especially with 20 teams in the League. NO on that issue from Chatsworth.
By the way, if you haven't noticed, to EVERYONE I offered Castilla to (obviously the most hated man in the majors LOL), he's up for grabs now!

_Jicks Rays - Wednesday, July 09 2003 @ 06:11 PM EDT (#13731) #

Can we have our trade put thru Coach?? Pretty please! I was hoping to use Phillips bat before Piazza comes back.:)

Coach - Thursday, July 10 2003 @ 12:48 PM EDT (#13732) #

Rick, I called the faster trade approval "a suggestion" and didn't mean it should be implemented for this year. It's another wrinkle we can consider, but we haven't even begun to discuss it.

I still need to hear from two owners before announcing the results of the voting on the other proposed changes. Please contact me ASAP.

_Jicks Rays - Friday, July 11 2003 @ 08:20 AM EDT (#13733) #

I took the faster trade suggestion to heart. In after thought it was probably because it would have been to my advantage. I was being greedy and I apologize!

BBFL: Tighter Than Ever | 41 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.