Conventional Wisdom and Such

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 18, 2009 11:15 AM EST Comment 49 comments

This has been a very odd week.

On Sunday night, about, eh, six hours before our interview with Andrew Friedman went up, Bill Belichick stole the hearts and minds (okay, some of the minds) of the sporting culture by deciding against punting. Whether you agree with the decision or not, the move was a mark of innovation in a league stricken with homogenous talents, payrolls, schemes, and thought processes. The move was outlandish and unconventional and absolutely beautiful because of it.

In some ways I fancy myself a masochist, so Monday night I chose to watch Sportscenter and the Monday Night Countdown programming by my own desire to see the reaction of the two dozen ESPN personalities. Most wrote the move off as moronic and foolish, others called out Belichick's ego, Teddy Bruschi said the defense would suffer from this decision, and so on. Ron Jaworski seemed to be the only person who dug beyond clichés or unquantifiable hyperbole in his explanation.

I promise this is related to the Rays, just give me a moment.

Monday was a fantastic battle between the guys who preach results based analysis and the process based analysts. The latter entered swinging machetes of paper -- well, mostly hyperlinked chains -- at the ignorant tree's trunk to no avail because their bark is stronger than their bark. Fingers were jammed in ears, exclamation points and shift keys were abused, and some people discovered how to do simple probabilities for the first time since statistics class.

All of this got me to thinking about conventional wisdom and how silly some are to rely solely upon it. Not to beat this Belichick thing to death, and this is an admittedly unoriginal point to raise, but if they do convert, aren't all of these guys slamming him now suddenly praising him for having brass ones and the confidence in the best quarterback ever? Such is results based analysis. Decisions aren't pass or fail - or at least shouldn't be evaluated as such if you want your analysis taken seriously. Yeah, the play failed, but was the idea behind the play good? People who know more about football, down conversions, and field position think so.

Not every move has to be made with the hopes of raging against the machine or being a raisin in the sun. That's another level of extremity that few should hope for. But a little bit of creativity never hurt anyone - the NFL should keep this in mind. Really.

That leads me to Friedman and the Rays front office in general. Whether you thought he was preaching gospel or withholding trade secrets in the interview is irrelevant. He doesn't have to come out and say "Take your RBI and shove ‘em" in a Theo Epstein manner because the moves he signs on with say this for him. He doesn't have to divulge anything, and as fans, we shouldn't want him to. Jonah Keri is a great guy and a spectacular writer, but if he puts something in his Rays book (releasing sometime in 2011 - what? I'm about to threaten his health, the least I can do is pub him) that hurts the Rays' future pursuits of talent then, well, I can't print what I hope happens to him because of legal prosecution and such.

The Rays take unconventional to entirely new levels. Public opinion seems to matter not in the least on any move they make. Whether the move turns out great or not so great, this unit sticks to their guns because they are confident in their processes. Look at the Scott Kazmir trade. They were a bit lucky that most became disillusioned with Kazmir after some questionable starts and comments on the fan base, but still most saw it as a salary dump and a sickening waving of the white flag.

Did the Rays care? Doesn't look like it.

Keri and I have held some random rosterbation sessions where some pretty outlandish stuff was proposed and the end result is always "Well, if any team would do that ..." and it's true. Okay, maybe the Rays won't be trading [Player X] for [Player Y] anytime soon, but I doubt there's a more open-minded and creative front office in baseball.

Tommy wrote about moving Carlos Pena earlier and with most teams you would laugh at it. Oh, they're going to trade the league leader in home runs, a fan favorite, the leader in :)%, and a great clubhouse presence? Sure. With the Rays, I can almost guarantee they've talked about potential scenarios. Buster Olney supposedly reported the Rays had internal discussions (buzzword!) about moving Ben Zobrist to the outfield and signing Orlando Hudson. Sounds insane. If Hudson is offered arbitration it would probably be insane. Yet, how many teams say "Zobrist is coming off one of the best seasons in baseball at second base and maybe we're better off by using his flexibility and signing a new second baseman instead of signing a new right fielder"?

When the same people who bleed convention criticized the Rays for hiring a bunch of Wall Street kids I would never have imagined saying they were right about something. But here we sit and they were absolutely correct when they said these guys aren't "baseball guys". They aren't tied to conventional wisdom or tradition. I can go for that like fourth and two.

3 recs | Comment 49 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

If the process is about running one hell of an efficient operation

then I think they’re doing a good job. But if the long-term goal is to just do that and maybe get lucky and win a World Series(like what almost happened in 2008), I’m not as thrilled. That’s why I’d love to see us use some farm system and acquire some sort of impact player.

Vroom vroom party starter
www.raysprospects.com

by Imperialism32 on Nov 18, 2009 11:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'd rather have a winning team every season

who will compete for a playoff spot every year than a team who gets better over three seasons, makes the playoffs, then has no talent in their system to compete the year after. All you CAN hope for is to get lucky to win a world series, yeah there’s a lot you can do to improve your chances, but in the end luck plays a huge role.

by staplemaniac on Nov 18, 2009 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

With the system we have now, we can do both

If we trade away (say) three of our better prospects(excepting DJ, Hellickson, Davis) we still have a top-15 farm system. And the Phillies are a good example of a team that didn’t have a top-tier farm system but still produced Hamels, Howard, Utley, Rollins. So you can maintain a really good farm system even if you trade some of it away. Of course, signing your top two draft picks would help, too.

Vroom vroom party starter
www.raysprospects.com

by Imperialism32 on Nov 18, 2009 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But then don't you have to look at the ways consistent playoff competitiveness

has actually been acheived in the modern game of baseball?

And by the modern game I mean the era of free agency where players have the ability to change their employer.

There isn’t just one path. But the willingness to augment one’s roster with key free agent and trade acquisitions, and rather substantial payroll, has been the path most correlated with success.

So building an organization that has more financial resources makes the job easier. Winning breeds fans, which allows a franchise to add and retain key players by expanding its payroll flexibility. And retaining players recognized by the more casual fan also helps build and maintain a fan base, ideally while maintaining competitiveness.

Smaller markets have inherent limitations in this regard, so have to rely on cost effective transactions more often, mainly by trying to keep a healthy development system. But this becomes a bit more difficult when winning consistently. I recognize the Rays weren’t built solely on high draft picks, but it certainly hasn’t hurt as many key players were early round picks – and early in those rounds – or acquired in exchange for early round picks.

One of the more effective strategies for the Rays and other clubs, perhaps none better than the Marlins, has been to spin off higher priced players to augment their system along with their draft results. This is the notion behind many of the trade ideas spouted here – CC, Bartlett, Pena, Kaz. But will that work?

The only team that has come close to acheiving somewhat consistent success in this manner that I can think of is the Twins – and they have the luxury of playing in what has been a rather weak division. Not a luxury the Rays have. It seems to me at some point the org is going to have to build its market to a level where an $80 MM payroll can be accomodated. How to get there seems to require winning consistently and possibly retaining some solidly producing players of some recognizability to the average fan.

Frankly I believe the Rays org could support an $80MM payroll right now, though that would cut into the rather significant profits the org has enjoyed over the last few seasons. To me it might be the moment to take that financial risk in the interest of market building for the future. That is a decision that would seem out of the box for the Rays.

by nyyfaninlaaland on Nov 19, 2009 2:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You make mention of expanding payroll without listing any potential receptacles for these monies.

Who, exactly, would you spend money on to increase payroll, outside of extending Crawford?

I'm not really a NUMBERS guy!!

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 19, 2009 9:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not advocating spending for the sake of it

merely suggesting the possibility of extending players like CC, Pena, and a willingness to perhaps spend on a FA if a fit is there – the pen and or C seem like the holes needing addressing. I don’t really see a decent solution for the latter in the FA market – that could require a trade. There are FA options for the pen – and I wouldn’t rule out Type A’s out of hand just because they might mean a pick loss. If offered arb it will likely negatively impact their $ cost so there’s a tradeoff there.

By the way, it;s my understanding that on the comp picks for failing to sign guys in ‘09, it’s a one shot deal. It’s sign the comp or lose the pick afterwards. So the Rays will likely go with more “safe” picks with those slots. They don’t roll over into the next draft if unsigned. My impression here comes from vague remembrances of discussions about the Evil Empire’s ’09 draft – their sole Round 1 pick was a comp one for not signing Gerrit Cole in ’08.

by nyyfaninlaaland on Nov 19, 2009 8:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would agree with you more if I thought we had a better chance in 2010 than we do in 2011 or 2012 or whatever down the line

I think we will be well positioned each of these years and if either of the two teams ahead of us slips for a moment, then we’ll make a more short-term move.

I'm not really a NUMBERS guy!!

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 18, 2009 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My take on the Rays roster

is that 2010 may be the best opportunity.

Crawford and Pena are FA’s after, Wheeler and Balfour could be going, and it’s even possible you’ll be regretting Burrell’s FA status by July. And more and more players will be moving into or through their arb years, exerting added financial demands. Perhaps the tradeable assets bring back talent that fills the short term gaps, but that’s not guaranteed.

by nyyfaninlaaland on Nov 19, 2009 2:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You don't know that

Pena has been trending downward over the last 2 years since his phenomenal 07. Craw is a good one, no denying that, but in 08 he had, arguably, his worst season since he was a teenager and we went to the World Series. What I see out of all these names leaving is this: $35 Millions of dollars. This is a team that will keep the core together and spin off pieces where they can. $35 million represents what will be freed up if those 4 players leave after this year (assuming 2M for Balfour and omitting Wheeler’s buyout). I have seen this front office operate on a shoestring, honestly, I can’t wait to see what they can do with that big wad of cash. I can tell you, that no matter who comes or goes, pitching and defense will continue to be at the forefront of our priority lists. If you do those things, you’ll be in most games. Maybe it’s just me, but I prefer watching that over seeing a bunch of flyball hitters take the ball out of a little league stadium. To each, their own, I suppose.

I'm not really a NUMBERS guy!!

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 19, 2009 9:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course I don't know it.

Hence I said “may”, “possible”, “perhaps”, and “not guaranteed”.

And remember, there will still be significant players in ‘11 taking significant raises in arb – or signed to deals that will still likely mean significant raises. Garza, Howell, Upton in year 2, Zobrist in year 1 all will take bites out of that $35 MM, along with about $4.4 in contacted raises to Shields, Longo, Price and Aybar’s option if picked up. So that leaves say $25MM for a C, 1B, DH, 2 RP’s at the back. Some of that might get filled if CC, Barty, Pena, Navi. Wheeler, Balfour are traded. Which likely means the white flag went up in ’10.

Fact isit’s going to require virtually every prospect of significance in the upper minors to replace the production of the departing, with trades filling in some gaps and perhaps dipping into the FA pool for the final slot or 2. It can work out, but pretty much everything has to go right.

My real point is that the Rays need to keep competing at a high level to continue to build the fan base and grow their revenue streams. Trading off many of the most recognizable players won’t help in the eyes of the casual fan. Greater financial resources is a big key to long term success.

And how did Pena, CC, Bartlett, Balfour, Wheeler become not part of “the core”? Plus the immediate replacements for CC and Barty – DJ and Briggy, and perhaps Hellickson for Garza – have to maintain approximately the vets level of play. You can say they will – but you don’t know that.

by nyyfaninlaaland on Nov 20, 2009 1:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's the fine line

Do you sacrifice future seasons to go for broke now? Or do you try and remain competitive while building towards the future at the same time?

Basically, do we want to be the marlins where we win a WS, suck for a few years, and then go for it again at a later date? Or do we try the Twins method? I think the Rays, whether they’ve tried to or not, are leaning towards the Twins methods. Of course playing in the East and not the Central is a bit of a problem with that.

www.draysbay.com

by Tommy Rancel on Nov 18, 2009 11:35 AM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

It's not a matter of sacrificing future seasons

If we trade away Jeremy Hellickson and Alex Cobb, we still have a hell of a lot of pitching depth. Of course all prospects don’t pan out and some will stall, get injured, etc, but we have the depth to be able to afford losing a few to a trade while still leaving us in a decent position for the future.

I’m not saying force yourself to make a trade, because if a decent deal isn’t there, don’t do one(I do think we can afford to get ripped off a bit if it means improving the MLB club).

Vroom vroom party starter
www.raysprospects.com

by Imperialism32 on Nov 18, 2009 11:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree to an extent. But instead of trading the conventional prospects

The Rays have been trading guys like Jackson and Hammel for smaller pieces and making room for the next group.

Instead of trading Hellickson, I would much rather prepare a package around Niemann and then promote Hellickson to take his spot. You’re still using your depth to improve in other places. But I do understand your want to make a home run type move that would take more than a Niemann type.

www.draysbay.com

by Tommy Rancel on Nov 18, 2009 11:45 AM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

Niemann I would think would still have considerable pull

but yeah an offer would need to be greater to get something significant.

But what types of players like that are actually “available”? With the Dodgers, perhaps someone like Russel Martin might be available, but he has question marks and is already in year two of arbitration. There may be a few impact closers who make reasonable money and under team control for a few seasons (see Joakim Soria) but the price seems like it might be too much to even consider.

Adrian Gonzalez? Roy Halladay? Felix Hernandez?
Halladay is a one-year rental (and a Niemann-brignac package would be a huge price to pay for just one season). Hernandez is probably not being moved. Adrian Gonzalez, however is intriguing. However, that would mean moving either Pena or Burrell. And still Gonzalez would take an immense cost to acquire (Niemann, Brignac, Barnese? and that still may not be enough to get it done). But the thought of adding a top offensive threat in his prime under very reasonable cost is enticing…but the reality is, there just are very few truly impact players available.

The Rays have better odds of hoping for an impact out of Joyce and rebound years out of Burrell (contract year) and Navi (somewhere between 2008 and 2009, Navi’s true talent will emerge in 2010).

by raysfaninminnesota on Nov 18, 2009 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We've got the young pitching that could

get the Brewers to part with Matt Gamel, I don’t know if Niemann would be enough, but if we wait until the trade deadline to give Gamel more ML experience and let Pena go, we could use those prospects and Niemann (replaced with Hellboy) to get him. I don’t know if that would be enough or too much, but he’s definitely a guy who would fit into our plans and fill a major organizational weakness weakness (future 1B).

the ghost of stokes, camp, lugo strikes TB-sept 2009

by CubFanRaysaddict on Nov 18, 2009 6:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We're about to use the farm system to acquire a few impact players.

Davis, Jennings, and Joyce.

We’re a true talent 90 win club, there’s not much else you can ask for. Get into the playoffs (which is a bit harder given the division) and see where they fall from there. I don’t think it’s realistic to expect any team in our environment to be much more on a consistent basis.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 18, 2009 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Rec'd.

by B Ray on Nov 18, 2009 12:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And they're not afraid to try and make a splash.

They made a non-publicized run at Matt Holliday this off-season and the offer we made was legit.

Tools Whore

by Tyler on Nov 18, 2009 12:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As I wrote, this FO is open to anything.

Holliday, Bay, Hudson, Martinez, Lee, and names we don’t even know about. They’re constantly looking to upgrade in ways that most of us won’t even rosterbate about.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 18, 2009 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bonds.

www.draysbay.com

by Tommy Rancel on Nov 18, 2009 12:38 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

:(

Chemistry means something to this organization and that hurts my heart. Apparently San Fransisco said they wouldn’t recommend us signing him. Still saddens me.

Tools Whore

by Tyler on Nov 18, 2009 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

collusion

I'm not really a NUMBERS guy!!

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 18, 2009 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The team thinks clubhouse chemistry is important, and that saddens you?

I mean, I think I know what you’re getting at; but at the same time, on the extremes, without clubhouse chemistry, we end up with teams like the Bucs. There’s got to be a balance here somewhere.

But yeah if the Rays just went on San Fran’s word about Bonds and didn’t do a face-to-face, that’s unfortunate.

I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.

by kericr on Nov 18, 2009 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Troy Percival sat in the corner starring down reporters with a scowl on his face.

I’m sure Bonds isn’t much worse, and unlike Percival, he would’ve helped us.

/Dead horse.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 18, 2009 3:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Because reporters are tremendously important to clubhouse chemistry.

I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.

by kericr on Nov 18, 2009 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Reporters are people too.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 18, 2009 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd rank them one level above hobos.

I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.

by kericr on Nov 18, 2009 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wouldn't that have been crazy?

Bonds DHing for the 2008 Rays… what a team

Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all

McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.

GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!

by baetown415 on Nov 18, 2009 9:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely.

That wasn’t directed at you, obviously you knew about it. That was directed at people like Kevin who are suggesting we should use our depth to improve the team. Fact is, we’re willing to give up value to receive value. But we’re also not going to compromise our core or mortgage our future to accomplish short term goals.

Tools Whore

by Tyler on Nov 18, 2009 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I understand that, but my point is we're not necessarily mortgaging the future

but trading away (again this is hypothetic) Alex Cobb and Alex Colome.

Vroom vroom party starter
www.raysprospects.com

by Imperialism32 on Nov 18, 2009 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We aren't. But if we could get 3-4 WAR types for either, I think we would've done that.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 18, 2009 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But really, every team is exploring upgrades.

Talk is cheap – unless a deal gets done it means nothing. We may think a deal looks good, but only the opinion of the actual parties matters. A “legit offer” is merely an offer that’s good in the eyes of the offering party.

If the FO is “in” on so many big deals, why haven’t more been done (notwithstanding Garza / Bartlett)? Perhaps they, as well as some here, have a higher regard for their trade pieces than the market does.

by nyyfaninlaaland on Nov 19, 2009 2:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps because some teams shy away from dealing with them.

And are you saying 1 year of Holliday is worth more than Kazmir and a few other pieces? Because last off-season I’m not so sure that’s the case.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 19, 2009 10:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps

or perhaps, as has been intimated in some discussions, the Rays aren’t easy to deal with for the reasons I stated.

It doesn’t really matter what I think about trade value – the trade partner’s opinion is what matters. But are you saying that Kaz and “a few pieces” was better than what the Rox got – Street, Gonzalez, and a since injured Smith?

by nyyfaninlaaland on Nov 20, 2009 1:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

When is Jonah Keri's book scheduled to come out?

Last I heard it was supposed to be done in early 2010. Has that changed?

by mmccoy on Nov 18, 2009 11:48 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Apparently it was a miscommunication between Jonah and his publisher.

It’s due to them in late 2010 and due to the printers in early 2011. Probably right before the season starts.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 18, 2009 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

While i rant and rave in mostly knee jerk reactions

i couldn’t be ghappier with this owner/fo

by sternfan1 on Nov 18, 2009 1:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I would like to see a Jonah-RJ throwdown.

That is all.

by Tommy Bennett on Nov 18, 2009 1:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Not really fair at the moment

I imagine Jonah is still getting over that wreck.

I'm not really a NUMBERS guy!!

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 18, 2009 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hey man, he loves those kids.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 18, 2009 1:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think the throwdown just got upgraded to a Texas Death match

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Nov 18, 2009 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How is Texas' style of death different then any other?

I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.

by kericr on Nov 18, 2009 3:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Remember the Alamo

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Nov 18, 2009 4:04 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

This is why the signing of Burrell is still a good decision

If the Rays had to do it all over again, I’m sure they’d repeat the same process. The problem, just like with Belichek, was not the call, but the execution. Even though I was advocating signing Abreu last offseason, the signing of Burrell was still a good move (and they did try to sign Abreu but he overestimated his market value).

What makes this such an interesting organization to follow in the offseason is you really have no friggin idea what to truly expect. They could stand pat, they could trade Bartlett or CC, they could get involved in the Roy Halladay or Felix Hernandez sweepstakes, they could trade for someone like Soria or Bell, or they could trade for Wuertz. They could sign Wagner or they could sign Calero. Would it really truly surprise anyone what this FO did?

I think that’s what makes rosterbation fun because nearly anything seems plausible.

The only question I have is if it is worth it to try more of the Phillies model of trading for impact players of need (sometimes at the expense of the farm system) who in 2008 acquired Brad Lidge who filled a huge bullpen need and did it extremely well or trading for Cliff Lee who was a beast in the post-season. But then again, the Rays have tried to do just that, when they thought they had Jason Bay last trading deadline only for it to fall through in the closing seconds. Again, the Rays appear to have the process down and I don’t want to fault them for the results, which are beyond their control.

With that in mind, when you take a look at everything this organization has done or attempted to do, or come close to doing (remember they reportedly even offered in the 20 mil range for a post fee in bidding for Dice-K’s services), I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who can find fault with their processes.

by raysfaninminnesota on Nov 18, 2009 5:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

To the original analogy...

I’m a big fan of outside the box thinking. Conventional wisdom has killed many organizations. At the same time, just because something is “innovative” does not make it a good idea. I happen to think going for it on 4th and 2 on your own 28 when you are up by six is a bad idea, whether you make it or not. The risk/reward is too high. I think overshifting the infield can be utilized beyond the point it remains effective. I think there is a point where the outfield is playing TOO shallow. And I’m sometimes bothered that conventional wisdom (which became the conventional wisdom through the experiences of players and coaches and writers over the 150 years people have been playing baseball) is looked at with disdain by some of the new breed.

It’s a good thing to test the boundaries. It’s a good thing to wonder if this box is still relevant to the way people play the game, and it’s a good thing to discard boxes that aren’t. But respect the box. It has served us well for a long time. And don’t throw the box too far away. Sometimes you find out that tossing the box creates a whole new set of problems that are worse than the ones you had to begin with.

Just saying, a little humility goes a long way.

by nomoredevil on Nov 18, 2009 7:21 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

Right, both sides of the coin are extremes that should be avoided.

Definitely agree.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 18, 2009 7:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Seconded.

Have to agree with the Belichick process thing – that’s not a good process for the reasons stated. Had he succeeded, he’d likely be being lauded by many of his critics – but that would be results based analysis as well.

Problem is we’re dealing with humans, not staistical projections. Change happens, and things can look bad in retrospect. Some look bad from the get-go. and some turn around. In my mind the Swisher trade was just awful from a ChiSox perspective. But 3 years from now if somehow Marquez has become a servicable starter and Nunez a pen cornerstone while Swish has turned into a bad version of Jack Cust some may see it differently. I’d still think NY got what it wanted in 2009 and the rest doesn’t matter.

by nyyfaninlaaland on Nov 19, 2009 2:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs