Indians to trade Stevens and others for DeRosa

by **TonyIBI** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:48 pm

http://www.indiansprospectinsider.com/2 ... -rosa.html

No official word on this at the moment, but apparently the Indians have agreed to a deal in principle to acquire infielder Mark DeRosa from the Cubs in exchange for reliever Jeff Stevens and a few other minor leaguers. No word on how many other players will be traded or what minor leaguers the Indians are sending out, but this is what I have learned as of now.

by **Jake Taylor** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:58 pm

Heck of a deal if the trade is focused around Stevens, truthfully... even though I like Stevens a lot, we're plenty deep of guys on the brink in our bullpen.

by **Hermie13** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:04 pm

wow....just wow. depending on the other prospects, this is a steal.

Also (non-Indians related), wonder if this means the Peavy to Cubs talks may be back on? They may move Marquis to Colorado and DeRosa to us freeing up the money they said they may need.....

Or maybe they're throwing all that money at Bradley as rumored......

by **Jake Taylor** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:06 pm

I think this definitely means the Peavy talks are back on.

by **TonyIBI** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:12 pm

Not sure if this is centered around Stevens....I doubt it. I think the center piece is one of our young lefty starters + Stevens and if a third player is involved a lower level pitcher.

by **JP_Frost** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:15 pm

as long as the lefty isn't named Laffey, Huff or De La Cruz. DeRosa is a nice player, but he's hardly worth anything more than Lewis/Sowers+Stevens and lower level minor leaguer.

by **Jake Taylor** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:18 pm

DeRosa's only signed for one more year, would we look into extending his services immediately?

by **JP_Frost** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:19 pm

no, I think he'd be a stopgap for Valbuena.

by **Hermie13** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:20 pm

If it's Laffey I'm still ok with it. Not Huff though.

by **Hermie13** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:21 pm

JP_Frost wrote:no, I think he'd be a stopgap for Valbuena.

or Barfield....or Hodges...lol

Not to mention he'll already be 34 in 2009.

by **npc29** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:22 pm

I like Stevens and all but... We need help..

It all depends on who that young lefty starter is....

by **Jake Taylor** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:24 pm

Best thing about players on a one-year deal like DeRosa, is they're playing for a 3-4 year contract for the next season. We should see the absolute best of DeRosa.

Let's hope the Cubs eat a bit of his salary in the deal if we have to give up a lefty starter and Stevens.

by **Jake Taylor** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:28 pm

Official per Buster Olney... DeRosa for three players, but the players are not listed.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3802342

by **JP_Frost** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:29 pm

I think we'll be lucky if he repeats his numbers from last season, and personally I don't think he will, but he should be a solid player. It gives ValGood another year to mature and we'll get a draft pick if DeRosa leaves.

It still hinges on the lefty starter.

by **TonyIBI** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:35 pm

Official.

THe three players we are giving up are Stevens, Archer, and Gaub.

by **Jake Taylor** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:36 pm

Wow, what a great trade!

by **Hermie13** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:42 pm

Archer is a nice young arm.....but Gaub is 23 and was at A ball last year, a reliever we could definately afford to give up. Solid deal.

by **Duane Kuiper** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:43 pm

DeRosa, who played six different positions for the Cubs last season, is expected to play third base for the Indians.

http://blog.cleveland.com/sports/2008/1 ... _infi.html

by **npc29** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:43 pm

WOW.. Fantastic..

by **Hermie13** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:45 pm

Cubs signed Aaron Miles to a 2-year deal I saw, was wondering why they did this with DeRoas still, lol

And maybe it's just me.....but even with the rotation we have, I think this makes us the clear favorites in the AL central this year.....

by **artgold** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:46 pm

No problems with the deal here, from both team's perspectives.

by **Hermie13** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:48 pm

Duane Kuiper wrote:DeRosa, who played six different positions for the Cubs last season, is expected to play third base for the Indians.

http://blog.cleveland.com/sports/2008/1 ... _infi.html

Is this from the Indians or what Hoynes thinks?

I'd think our defense would be better with DeRosa at 2B, AC at SS, and Jhonny P at 3B.....but guess that's splitting hairs....

I also think you could see DeRosa in LF a decent amount next year with Carroll at 2B getting starts if Francisco struggles at all.

by **twdelaney34** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:49 pm

Losing Stevens hurts, but with all the recent acquisitions and previous depth, he was expendable. Great move for the Tribe, just hope they leave Mark at 2B and shift the rest of the IF.

Can't wait to see how Dennis pans this one and to read Keith Law's take.

by **Duane Kuiper** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:51 pm

Hermie13 wrote:
Duane Kuiper wrote:DeRosa, who played six different positions for the Cubs last season, is expected to play third base for the Indians.

http://blog.cleveland.com/sports/2008/1 ... _infi.html

Is this from the Indians or what Hoynes thinks?

I'd think our defense would be better with DeRosa at 2B, AC at SS, and Jhonny P at 3B.....but guess that's splitting hairs....

I also think you could see DeRosa in LF a decent amount next year with Carroll at 2B getting starts if Francisco struggles at all.

From Castro Turf.

Though the 33-year-old DeRosa played primarily at second base for the Cubs, the Indians will probably move him to third to avoid disrupting their infield. The Tribe had considered moving shortstop Jhonny Peralta to third and second baseman Asdrubal Cabrera to short.

http://castrovince.mlblogs.com/archives/2008/12/indians_deal_for_derosa.html

by **Hermie13** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:57 pm

Thanks.

I know I'm thinking way too much into this already......but with Valbuena and Barfield looking way more ML ready than Hodges...wouldn't it make sense to get Pearlta comfortable with 3B now since it would seen like he'll need to move next year anyways? O well though, either way it adds a very nice bat in DeRosa. A Blake-like player really.

by **Duane Kuiper** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:07 pm

I wonder if how Peralta played at 3B in winter league affected getting DeRosa and saying that he is going to play 3B. I still don't think Peralta would be good enough to play 3B.

by **Hermie13** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:23 pm

Not good enough how? He has the arm to play 3B that's for sure. And he handled himself well enough back in AAA his last year there (and also won the IL MVP award in the process....obviously didn't have an effect on his bat). He'll never win a GG there....but won't ever win one at SS either (well...take that back, Young won one and he's worse than Peralta, lol).

by **JP_Frost** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:31 pm

Great move. I would've loved to have seen Stevens with the Indians, but given our bullpen depth we can do without him. Hopefully, it's still up in the air if Peralta will stay at SS. I think DeRosa's bat fits better at 2nd and Peralta still have some upside offensively.

by **Duane Kuiper** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:33 pm

Peralta had 14 errors in 59 games at 3B in 2004 in AAA. That is not good. That's a 36 errors in 150 game pace.

We've already discussed this. I'm not going to debate it again.

by **JP_Frost** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:37 pm

That was almost 5 years ago when he was still a prospect. Besides, errors don't tell you anything. Maybe he really can't play 3rd, but there have been some reports that he looked pretty good at the hot corner this winter.

by **TonyIBI** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:43 pm

Just posted a full article on the front page with detailed scouting reports of all three players we gave up. THis was actually a good trade as it lets me sort of promote what people will be seeing in my rankings/prospect book this year!

by **Hermie13** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:44 pm

Duane Kuiper wrote:Peralta had 14 errors in 59 games at 3B in 2004 in AAA. That is not good. That's a 36 errors in 150 game pace.

We've already discussed this. I'm not going to debate it again.

You can't just do that with errors, just like you can't do it with hits or any other stat. He had nearly the same fielding pct as Thome did the year before he was a ML regular (.923). Again, not saying he'd be a stud there, but he'd be fine at 3B. A .923 fielding pct at 3B is far from great, but livable if he's hitting 20-25 HRs and scoring/driving in runs.

Also not saying it's wrong to leave him at SS and use DeRosa at 3B....just don't totally agree with the logic behind it.

One nice thing is Peralta will break the Indians all-time HR record for a SS in 2009 now, which I'll be glad to see. He's earned it.

by **Hermie13** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:45 pm

JP_Frost wrote:Great move. I would've loved to have seen Stevens with the Indians, but given our bullpen depth we can do without him. Hopefully, it's still up in the air if Peralta will stay at SS. I think DeRosa's bat fits better at 2nd and Peralta still have some upside offensively.

Don't see why that matters. His bat will be the same at 2B as 3B....as will Peralta and AC's no matter the position they're at.... :s_scratchhead

by **JP_Frost** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:48 pm

Uhm no. Let's say DeRosa puts up an .800 OPS -- would you rather have that come from 2nd base or 3rd?

by **artgold** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:49 pm

I think they will leave him at 2nd base, and move ACab to shortstop.

Regarding the deal, look at it this way, we finally have closure on Brandon Phillips.

After all Phillips was traded for Stevens, who was just dealt for DeRosa. So basically, you have Phillips dealt for a replacement grinder to be named (much, much) later.

Regarding Phillips and DeRosa, I thought the Bill James projections for next year are kind of interesting:

Phillips - .263 BA, 39 BBs, 21 HRs

DeRosa - .273 BA, 63 BBs, 17 HRs

by **Hermie13** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:57 pm

JP_Frost wrote:Uhm no. Let's say DeRosa puts up an .800 OPS -- would you rather have that come from 2nd base or 3rd?

It doesn't matter! You still have it in your lineup dude. And the other two infielders are the same hitters. :s_empathy

by **Hermie13** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:00 pm

artgold wrote:I think they will leave him at 2nd base, and move ACab to shortstop.

Regarding the deal, look at it this way, we finally have closure on Brandon Phillips.

After all Phillips was traded for Stevens, who was just dealt for DeRosa. So basically, you have Phillips dealt for a replacement grinder to be named (much, much) later.

Regarding Phillips and DeRosa, I thought the Bill James projections for next year are kind of interesting:

Phillips - .263 BA, 39 BBs, 21 HRs

DeRosa - .273 BA, 63 BBs, 17 HRs

Phillips is very overrated IMO. He hits HRs but other 2007 he's been a below average hitter (OPS+ under 100). I'd obviously take him back though.....but DeRosa very likely could put up better numbers than Phillips in 2009 (he has 2 of the last 3 years already).

by **JP_Frost** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:01 pm

Hermie13 wrote:
JP_Frost wrote:Uhm no. Let's say DeRosa puts up an .800 OPS -- would you rather have that come from 2nd base or 3rd?

It doesn't matter! You still have it in your lineup dude. And the other two infielders are the same hitters.

Of course it matters. A .800 OPS guy at 2nd is more valuable than a 3rd baseman putting up the same numbers.

by **Hermie13** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:10 pm

lol, no it is NOT. not when you're talking about moving him within your own team and you're not replacing any of the other players.

Good grief. Not matter WHAT position DeRosa plays for the Indians, the batting order will be the exact SAME. Doesn't make any differnce of the positions.

1. Sizemore - CF
2. DeRosa - 3B
3. Martinez - C
4. Peralta - SS
5. Hafner - DH
6. Garko - 1B
7. Choo - RF
8. Francisco - LF
9. Cabrera - 2B

(Shoppach could be in here too if Hafner isn't healthy)

Put him at 2B and move AC and Peralta over.....we'll still have the EXACT SAME lineup.

And why aren't you bringing up that Peralta's bat is MUCH better at SS than 3B? An .800 OPS looks MUCH better at SS than 3B.....DeRosa had a higher OPS than Peralta each of the past 3 seasons......just an FYI.

I'm done....it makes no difference to the offense where DeRosa plays, only the defense....PERIOD.

by **dnosco** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:22 pm

Stevens - A guy with a lot of upside but some question marks based on his end of 2008 performance. Clearly ready for his first shot at the major leagues. I think we sold low on him because of the recent performance question marks.

Archer - A guy with an electric arm who is probably years away as judged by his BB/IP at low A. Still, his arm and stuff are probably a tick above Rob Bryson so it isn't exactly like he is a throw-in, at least to the people who think Bryson was a real prospect. We again sold low due to his control issues.

Gaub - Again, a guy who is sold low who is just getting back from arm injuries. Probably not a lot of upside but we traded him one year before we knew whether he was going to get his college stuff back. He clearly had great K numbers at low A. We sold slightly low on him

All three of the guys we traded were (a) question marks, (b) guys who have proven nothing in the majors and (c) strikeout pitchers.

DeRosa - I will leave it to the statheads to determine if he is a defensive plus or a liability as a fulltime secondbaseman. He has never played a full season at second, never even 100 games, and his resume at 3B and SS are even slimmer, though not greatly. By my calculation he should make over $5 million this year, the last year of his contract. So, as you all know by now, we are buying one year of DeRosa.

This is the kind of trade that Cleveland fans normally love. Something for now without worrying about the future because the guys we traded are not top 20 prospects in all of baseball, maybe not even for their own team (Tony?). Something that on the surface looks really good to help us be competitive now and, again on the surface, doesn't hurt our competitiveness long-term because none of these guys project to be superstars...again at the moment. Now, I will pose a question: What if Stevens turns out to be our 14th ranked prospect, Archer is 20 and Gaub is 40? Was that too much for a one year rental?

There is no way any Cleveland fan should not like this trade. We should all love it.

I am OK with it myself but I will say this. DeRosa is NOT the kind of guy I want. A one-year rental of a relatively old guy (though not ancient) who is well paid. Given my druthers I would rather have DeRosa at third and leave Peralta and Cabrera where they are instead of having THREE guys who have never played close to a whole season (in one year) at a position they will be playing all of 2009 in Cleveland (appears Cleveland is going this way). As said above, it really doesn't matter a lot although this DOES give the Indians mucho flexibility on their team, which is a REALLY, REALLY good thing. One more thing on DeRosa. We gave up a lot, relatively, for one year of a super utility guy. We should be getting some cash back. If not this is a salary dump by the Cubs, to some extent, and, as such, they shouldn't really get a great deal of talent back, using the metrics that people quote around here when we trade a guy and don't eat any of his salary.

Plus, given how prospects fall off the map, losing three prospect pitchers, two of them left handed, for a one year rental is not how I conduct business if I am the GM of a small market team.

Also, remember, this is Mark Shapiro. Church/Izturis for Stewart; Tavares/Scott for Robertson, and on and on and on. When we made those trades the same things were said as are being said now: it helps us now and the guys we gave up were not expected to be big contributors in the majors leagues, maybe ever.

However, as I said, I am sure all of fans in Cleveland will and should love this. It is the perfect trade for Cleveland fans, trading a certain present for a questionable future. And, while I think it helps now, I really question whether, between the thee pitchers we gave up, that we wouldn't have had more than one productive season out of them, meaning we would have traded multiple productive, CHEAP, major league seasons for one year of Mark DeRosa. Putting it that way, you gotta wonder at the wisdom of prospect for veteran trades, especially as we all know Shapiro's dismal, pathetic record in those kinds of trades.

But be happy, Cleveland fans. This trade's for you!

by **dnosco** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:37 pm

BTW, I think DeRosa was a Type A ranked player in the most recent Elias rankings...and that's a good thing as I could easily see them going to arbitration with him.

by **carnegie44115** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:41 pm

dnosco wrote:BTW, I think DeRosa was a Type A ranked player in the most recent Elias rankings...and that's a good thing as I could easily see them going to arbitration with him.

He is in the final year of a 3 yr/$13M deal, he is owed I think $5.5M for the final year.

Edit:

dnosco now I realized what you were saying, that's my fault on that.

by **cardiackidz** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:47 pm

if the big man from jamestown north dakota is back healthy this lineup could be awesome.

by **carnegie44115** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:56 pm

cardiackidz wrote:if the big man from jamestown north dakota is back healthy this lineup could be awesome.

If Hafner and VMart are both healthy, Garko lives up to his potential and his 07 numbers, Jhonny keeps being Jhonny, Sizemore still getting it done, Choo playing a full season, DeRosa repeating his 08, that is the possibility of 7 guys with the possibility of hitting 20+ HRs, that has to bring some fear to opposing pitching staffs.

by **Hermie13** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:09 pm

carnegie44115 wrote:If Hafner and VMart are both healthy, Garko lives up to his potential and his 07 numbers, Jhonny keeps being Jhonny, Sizemore still getting it done, Choo playing a full season, DeRosa repeating his 08, that is the possibility of 7 guys with the possibility of hitting 20+ HRs, that has to bring some fear to opposing pitching staffs.

Make that possibly EIGHT that could hit 20 HRs. Francisco has the ability too in a full season.....I'm not sold that he can, but it wouldn't be out of the question. Only guy that definately won't hit 20 is Cabrera.....plus you've got a 20 HR guy on the bench right now in Shoppach (as things stand right now...could change). Looch has hit 20+ HRs in his career as well and did hit 11 in only 353 at-bats last year (just pointing out he's a nice bench player).

This offense (at least on paper, which means nothing) is gonna be mashing the ball next year. And with the pen we have, our rotation doesn't really need an upgrade to compete (though it would def help).

by **carnegie44115** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:14 pm

Hermie13 wrote:
carnegie44115 wrote:If Hafner and VMart are both healthy, Garko lives up to his potential and his 07 numbers, Jhonny keeps being Jhonny, Sizemore still getting it done, Choo playing a full season, DeRosa repeating his 08, that is the possibility of 7 guys with the possibility of hitting 20+ HRs, that has to bring some fear to opposing pitching staffs.

Make that possibly EIGHT that could hit 20 HRs. Francisco has the ability too in a full season.....I'm not sold that he can, but it wouldn't be out of the question. Only guy that definately won't hit 20 is Cabrera.....plus you've got a 20 HR guy on the bench right now in Shoppach (as things stand right now...could change). Looch has hit 20+ HRs in his career as well and did hit 11 in only 353 at-bats last year (just pointing out he's a nice bench player).

This offense (at least on paper, which means nothing) is gonna be mashing the ball next year. And with the pen we have, our rotation doesn't really need an upgrade to compete (though it would def help).

I was thinking BenFran too, but just depends on how he starts out and what kind of a platoon situation he could possibly end up in with the Looch.

by **Hermie13** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:16 pm

dnosco wrote:Stevens - A guy with a lot of upside but some question marks based on his end of 2008 performance. Clearly ready for his first shot at the major leagues. I think we sold low on him because of the recent performance question marks.

Archer - A guy with an electric arm who is probably years away as judged by his BB/IP at low A. Still, his arm and stuff are probably a tick above Rob Bryson so it isn't exactly like he is a throw-in, at least to the people who think Bryson was a real prospect. We again sold low due to his control issues.

Gaub - Again, a guy who is sold low who is just getting back from arm injuries. Probably not a lot of upside but we traded him one year before we knew whether he was going to get his college stuff back. He clearly had great K numbers at low A. We sold slightly low on him

All three of the guys we traded were (a) question marks, (b) guys who have proven nothing in the majors and (c) strikeout pitchers.

DeRosa - I will leave it to the statheads to determine if he is a defensive plus or a liability as a fulltime secondbaseman. He has never played a full season at second, never even 100 games, and his resume at 3B and SS are even slimmer, though not greatly. By my calculation he should make over $5 million this year, the last year of his contract. So, as you all know by now, we are buying one year of DeRosa.

This is the kind of trade that Cleveland fans normally love. Something for now without worrying about the future because the guys we traded are not top 20 prospects in all of baseball, maybe not even for their own team (Tony?). Something that on the surface looks really good to help us be competitive now and, again on the surface, doesn't hurt our competitiveness long-term because none of these guys project to be superstars...again at the moment. Now, I will pose a question: What if Stevens turns out to be our 14th ranked prospect, Archer is 20 and Gaub is 40? Was that too much for a one year rental?

There is no way any Cleveland fan should not like this trade. We should all love it.

I am OK with it myself but I will say this. DeRosa is NOT the kind of guy I want. A one-year rental of a relatively old guy (though not ancient) who is well paid. Given my druthers I would rather have DeRosa at third and leave Peralta and Cabrera where they are instead of having THREE guys who have never played close to a whole season (in one year) at a position they will be playing all of 2009 in Cleveland (appears Cleveland is going this way). As said above, it really doesn't matter a lot although this DOES give the Indians mucho flexibility on their team, which is a REALLY, REALLY good thing. One more thing on DeRosa. We gave up a lot, relatively, for one year of a super utility guy. We should be getting some cash back. If not this is a salary dump by the Cubs, to some extent, and, as such, they shouldn't really get a great deal of talent back, using the metrics that people quote around here when we trade a guy and don't eat any of his salary.

Plus, given how prospects fall off the map, losing three prospect pitchers, two of them left handed, for a one year rental is not how I conduct business if I am the GM of a small market team.

Also, remember, this is Mark Shapiro. Church/Izturis for Stewart; Tavares/Scott for Robertson, and on and on and on. When we made those trades the same things were said as are being said now: it helps us now and the guys we gave up were not expected to be big contributors in the majors leagues, maybe ever.

However, as I said, I am sure all of fans in Cleveland will and should love this. It is the perfect trade for Cleveland fans, trading a certain present for a questionable future. And, while I think it helps now, I really question whether, between the thee pitchers we gave up, that we wouldn't have had more than one productive season out of them, meaning we would have traded multiple productive, CHEAP, major league seasons for one year of Mark DeRosa. Putting it that way, you gotta wonder at the wisdom of prospect for veteran trades, especially as we all know Shapiro's dismal, pathetic record in those kinds of trades.

But be happy, Cleveland fans. This trade's for you!

wow that's a lot of words, lol

I really don't think we sold low on Stevens at all. To the contrary in fact. He's not gonna be a closer at the ML level. At best he'll be a solid setup guy. Archer is a nice arm....I don't think the loss of Gaub will even be noticed really.

DeRosa is almost a clone of Blake....versatile, nice vet to have, and can hit 20 HRs. A bit better all-around IMO....plus makes a lil less (about $0.5M than Blake made last year)......and not to split hairs, but DeRosa is gonna make $5.55M.....he gets a $50,000 bonus for being traded that we have to pay......not really gonna break the bank though, lol.

Tribe gave up little to get a key piece....that's pretty cheap still when compared to a guy like Hudson on the open market.....even Crede will likely have cost more.

None of the moves the Tribe have made have been 'that' great.....but combined they have really turned this team around. If healthy (which is concern still) this team has the ability to go deep in the playoffs...

by **toledobuck** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:45 pm

I'm actually most upset about losing Gaub contrary to what everybody else is stating. Gaub is back healthy now and besides Sipp is our best LH reliever. Gaub was a power lefty reliever that could have dominated in the pen if he continued his current ascent of improvement. He averaged like 14 K's over 9 innings. I was not very high on Archer as he has always seemed to struggle with his command. He does miss bats but since his command is so bad he will never project in the pen. Stevens could be a very decent RP but his recent struggles in the Olympics possibly soured the Tribe's brass on his mental makeup and ability to work effectively in a high leverage major league pen. I actaully thought Gaub would be a very good major league reliever in about 2 years.

Overall this will be a good trade if the Tribe gets approx what DeRosa provided last year and remains a type A FA after this season that would net us a 1st round pick next year.

by **cardiackidz** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:00 pm

dennis argument makes no sense because this deal isnt about the future. this deal was to win and win big this year. if cleveland was going to win and go deep into october shapiro needed another infielder and he got him. hes not worrying about 3 years from now it's 09 and thats it. so if you llok at the trade from that standpoint its a deal he had to make and he did. plus i dont think hes done yet, he still has to go get a reliable starter and i think he'll do it.

by **cardiackidz** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:06 pm

also did anyone tell paul hoynes this trade went down?

Who is online