The MLB Players Association plays a powerful, but almost-invisible role in placement of top free agents.
In Saturday’s post, I included a Jack Clark quote noting the pressure he received way back in 1987 from the union, the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA), to take the largest contract offered him. It required a very uncomfortable move from the environment he and his family favored, St. Louis and the Cardinals, to New York and the Yankees. It was a decision Clark still regrets to this day.
This important factor in free agent negotiations and deliberations never seems to draw the publicity that the high-profile agents in chase of the best camera angles, biggest headlines and highest dollars receive.
Of course, that has to be the way the union wants it. Just as the owners have their collusion, uh collaboration, so do the players. I call your collusion and raise you one.
The most eye-opening piece I have ever read about the subject was written by former National League pitcher Mark Knudson and ran in the Ft. Collins Coloradoan on July 20, 2008. Knudson had spent parts of eight seasons in the majors with Houston, Milwaukee and Colorado, where he ended his career in 1993.
Unfortunately, the article has since been taken down*, but following are some of my summary points from Knudson, repeated from a July 23, 2008 subscriber-only article I wrote about Rick Ankiel at Scout.com.
* This post is being pre-empted by an Andy Rooney moment. Why do so many papers take down relatively-recent articles? Good luck trying to find a Post-Dispatch article from 2008, for example. I know money is tight for the mainstreamers, but someone needs to inform them that archival disk storage is really inexpensive these days.
…Knudson probes a little-understood angle – that of slotting and pressure by the Major League Baseball Players Association.
Fans are most familiar with the term “slotting” as it relates to the First-Year Player (amateur) Draft. In that case, MLB sets “suggested” bounds for the clubs to follow in awarding player bonuses…
In the case of free agents, the MLBPA plays a comparable enforcer role to stamp out hometown discounts and ensure that the big money players get their fair share compared to others. It is the old analogy that a rising tide lifts all boats.
Thereby, the Players Association help all their constituents earn more money, if not today, then down the road. Interestingly, the former MLB pitcher Knudson characterizes Boras as merely the “front man” behind the powerful Players Association.
Over the years, I have been as critical as anyone about the negotiating tactics of free agent Matt Holliday’s agent, Scott Boras, and will surely continue to be. Yet, if Knudson was anywhere close to the truth, and I have no reason to question him, the aggregate anger of Cardinal Nation aimed at Boras should at least be shared with new MLBPA executive director Michael Weiner (pictured) and his associates. Instead, the union leaders remain behind the curtain likely pushing their share of the buttons.
I can envision Holliday and his sequestered family huddled up in a bomb shelter somewhere waiting to be told by all those making decisions for them when sirens have sounded the all-clear, indicating it is safe to re-emerge from the nuclear winter.
And here we thought the game was so simple. Just see the ball and hit it.
Follow me on Twitter.
Brian, I think you are giving deserved emphasis to an under-reported aspect of free agency.
Free agency is an economic right that has been won by the union in litigation and with strikes. It is the right for an employee to get offers from other businesses and change job for a higher paycheck. In many walks of life, this is a welcome right.
If free agency is the result of union efforts, it should not be surprising if the MLPA wants its members to use this hard won right. And one of the selling points on selecting the highest bidder is the wage scale created via arbitration. The free agent who gets the highest salary becomes a reference point for shaping the salary of men during years 4-6, under arbitration.
If a player leaves a city, then it often suits teams to heap blame on his agent. The agent gets to don the black hat. This is just normal public relations spin. Since the Union wants guys to move and to take higher paychecks where-ever they are to be found, its best for the Union to keep a low profile too, with fans. But the core issue are the rights of human beings not to be shackled to one team for-ever, but to receive competitive offers. A guy like Boras is only one agent whose job it is to try to extract as many dollars as possible on behalf of his clients and the MLPA membership. Maybe Boras is good at this or maybe lots of other agents can equal him. It suits him to get a lot of publicity, to recruit more ballplayers as clients.
Its a difficult issue that cannot make everyone happy. I am neutral about Boras, other agents, and free agency. Earned free agency seems like a right that players should earn after years of playing, since why should the owners get to hog much of the moola? I do not have any anger about players or agents or the union or teams. Off season negotiations are just an aspect of the game.
Charlie Finley was right–make every player a free agent every year, salaries would be no where as high as they are now. Marvin Miller was scared to death that the owners would come to their senses and embrace Charlie O’s idea.
All of the Union – Owner agreements are about something. The Penury of young players for 3 years. Three years of Arbitration. If you last that long, you deserve to make some dough. The advent of revenue sharing and luxury tax. It has simple made for a very complex game for team building. Its exciting isn’t it?
Holiday may well have been told that he will likely get a bundle of money from any collusion agreements concerning this free agent class. He will likely take a 5 year deal in the end. The issue is, when the money starts flying, even at the collusion reduced level, will the Cards be players? Boston is pulling teeth to position themselves for something. The Yankees have too. What do you think that is about?………………………………. There is no excuse for not taking the arm we need right now, instead of whining about it latter. There are other variables…….obviously.
Letting world series heroes Damon and Matsui slide were the best moves the Yanks made in years. No sloppy sentimentality………..Matsui never blinked. He just went on his way. These were old horses. Boston is still slaving behind contracts it issued to big poppy and Lowell in their world series euphoria.
I’m still skeptical. What is the unions leverage to enforce this? Over players? Over agents? We’ve seen with slotting that it falls apart as soon as a team has the balls to stand up to MLB. It would seem the union would have even less clout and a much harder time keeping players and agents in line.
The arbitration issue that Jumbo mentioned is bogus for multi-year contracts. Only 1 year contracts can be referenced in arbitration (by either side). If that was the union’s goal, they’d pressure players to take higher value short term contracts (which teams would happily give).
Are we sure what the context of Clark’s union pressure comment was? My first reading of it was that he was getting pressure not to sign early with STL because him being out there without other offers would help their collusion case.
CC, I have a copy of the book from which the Clark quote came. I don’t think it was presented out of context here. My interpretation was that he had been tendered a contract for less money from the Cardinals which he still wanted to take, but bowed under pressure to accept NY’s deal instead. He specifically called out the union, but there surely could have been pressure applied by others too.
Debating the effectiveness of the union’s enforcement seems fair, but questioning its existence would appear to be inconsistent with the information presented. I am pretty sure the union has to sign off on all contracts before they can be finalized, giving them the opportunity to apply pressure if they deem necessary. By definition, agents would seem to be motivated to be more collaborative with the union than with owners.
This is a side point, but what is your source that only one-year contracts can be used in arbitration? I do not believe that is correct. In fact, one set of information required to be provided to the arbiters is the previous year’s salary for all MLB players, no matter their contract duration.
Here is one specific section of the CBA: “In utilizing the salary tabulation, the arbitration panel shall consider the salaries of all comparable Players and not merely the salary of a single Player or group of Players.”
Perhaps you meant annualized value?
Brian the article you are looking for is available for purchase ($3.95) from the paper’s archives. Use the search box at the top of the paer’s web page.
Thanks, CC. All I got was a broken link. The article was good enough to keep as it is rare for players, union members themselves, to be so open about the behind-the-scenes parts of the process.
Yet we see this week, Scott Rolen give a big home town discount (even lowering his salary this year). Non-FA contracts often are hometown discounts. Why are they different?
Not sure how it is relevant here, but Rolen got an additional two years in return for spreading out the overpriced money for 2010 remaining on his old Cardinals deal. He didn’t take a 2010 pay cut, he just deferred the rest of his 2010 salary without interest. He received some more security and the Reds pay an annual price closer to his real market value.
He’s worth a lot more than $6 million a year when healthy (which he appears to be). He’s just one example of many i could give though of HTD’s for non free agents.
I’m pretty sure the one year contract reference was from Bart Given (former Toronto asst GM) on his blog “Inside The Majors”. The site seems to be hijacked at the moment so i can’t research it at the moment. He went into a little detail of how the only comparable contract. are 1 year contracts since multi year deals involve job security, etc. I sent him a tweet about his site problem. If i can ever access it I’ll try to find it.
Rolen’s deal for 2011 and 2012 is $6.5 million (not counting the deferred money from 2010). We can agree to disagree on his value, but looking at OPS+, I see Rolen comparable to a Polanco ($6M) or DeRosa (TBD) at this point in his career. These are his age 35-37 seasons for an oft-injured player who has missed 1/3 of his teams’ games over the last five years. Might be worth a small edge in $ for his defense but I surely do not see Rolen’s new deal as significantly below market.
2009 WAR – Polanco 3.1 Derosa 1.7 Rolen 3.8
2009 OPS+ Polanco 101 Derosa 99 Rolen 117
Even if only equal to Polanco or Derosa, Rolen should be getting at least $6 million a year instead of $3+million. (though it looks like he probably should get about 20% more at least). That is a near 50% discount – you don’t see that as significantly below market value?
What was DeRosa’s WAR in 2008 when he was healthy? What was his OPS+ that season? Why, both are identical to Rolen’s last season… Let’s see what DeRosa gets in the market, but if is more than $7M, I will be surprised. If so, we are talking about the bandwidth between $6M and $7M; the difference I would consider to be noise. Polanco and DeRosa have position versatility, while Rolen is a superior third baseman. Yes, I see them as peas in the same pod.
Re Carioca’s claim that a multi year contract has no impact on salaries via arbitration and is thus in his word “bogus.”
The following is a conjecture, but its probably right enough: all player salaries must be lodged within data base. Then there will be a bunch of number crunching by both teams and the Union to calculate a generic player’s value for a given number of years in the league. Salaries are a function of time in service (at least through the first 6 years) and performance, with performance becoming more heavily weighted with time.
When Texiera gets an 8 year deal for $180MM, he helps pull up the scale for everyone under arbitration. If Holliday is the top guy the next year, but can “only” command 6 years for 96MM or whatever, then this has a slightly depressive effect. However, no single player’s contract is crucial and everyone’s contract, especially those signed in free agency, contributes to the entirety of the salary data.
Another depressive effect on the salary data base is when teams release guys or do not offer them arbitration. For instance, Brad Thompson this year, we assumed he would entitled to too much salary, owing to time in service, so we cut him loose. The higher the overall wage scale, the more teams will cut loose ho-hum guys who become entitled to higher salaries mostly because of service time.
When Brian does his estimation exercise of how much guys will make under arbitration, he probably looks for salaries for “comparable” players. All salaries would be in a data base available to both management and labor. For the next top free agent, agents will argue that Texira or Holliday apply in making their case for more money. Hypothetically, if Holliday earns $100,000 per RBI, then a rookie player may be calculated to be worth $5,000 per RBI. The teams and agents will all be looking at the entirety of the data base to make their arguments. When a guy is within the arbitration window, they may make their arguments to an arbitration panel.
The bottom line is that the Union likes free agency because it boosts salaries for both free agents and helps more junior guys. Its trickle down economics the Union believes in.
Even in his career year (2008) it took Derosa 149 games to put up a WAR that Rolen put up in in 127 games.
But even if Derosa and Rolen are equal, it appears Rolen gave a 50% discount. (and why would they be equal with Derosa coming off surgery that is known to cause others recovery problems in terms of power.).
Not sure how/why you keep equating $6-$7 million per for Derosa/Polanco to the $3.5 per additional per year that Rolen is getting.
I have no trouble conceding that Rolen might be in the range of Derosa/Polanco in terms of what they should get. But to say that him getting near 50% less then those 2 for 2011-2012 isn’t a home town discount makes no sense to me. That is a significant discount!
I do not see Rolen as having given a hometown discount to the Reds.
Scott and Walt got together. Walt got some salary relief for 2010 on Rolen, whereas Rolen got two more years tacked, at a reasonable salary given reduced offensive output. Walt restructured Cardinals contracts too.
Teams and agents are sophisticated in calculating salaries and they base salaries on a lot of data about performance/pay throughout MLB.
Carioca, did you read that Rolen also got a $5MM “signing bonus.” This must be some lawyerly semantic (that has a reason behind it). But if you add Scott’s $2.5MM bonus per year to the $3.5MM that you mention, he is at $6MM per year for 2011-12.
Carioca asked “whats the union’s leverage to enforce” this?
I would counter question, what is Bud’s leverage to try to hold down bonuses for amateurs? Its jawboning. Selig can call an owner and complain. Does this work? Sometimes and other times the owner could care less. Its not a law violation and nothing can be “enforced” because if it were enforced, the Union could sue alleging collusion and probably win.
So too the Union cannot force a player to take a higher salary, if he wants to stay where he is for a lower salary. But if the hometown discount becomes large, then the Union is not going to like that. They will tell Jack Clark or someone other player that he dragging down the salary scale for others too, not just himself. It would be anti-union-brotherhood to take a big hometown discount.
There are not a lot of hometown discounts in baseball. Its like ghosts and goblins; they get talked about, but how many real ones do you see? The Cards are going to pay the piper and make Holliday an appropriate offer for someone with his record. If some other owner wants to pay Matt a lot more, then the Cards will turn elsewhere. The Cards will pay a fair market price, in keeping with the wages within baseball, but they do not go overboard.
Yes Jumbo, you are right. Rolen did get about $6+ million per year for 2 more years as the relief in this year was simply converted to a 3 year payout bonus. I thought Brian meant $6.5 million total not annually in his post above. I still think he gave them a discount though not significant – though he also gets no trade protection which he wouldn’t have had in those out years otherwise which has to be worth something. But there are many instances of HTD’s for staying with teams yet no one ever mentions union involvement with them.
Jumbo, you are again contradicting your previous life as a poster where you often praised your favorite Cardinal GM for signing players to home town discounts. Now they don’t exist?
I feel confident in saying bud and MLB has a lot more influence over owners than the union does over players. Teams rely on the good graces of MLB from everything from scheduling changes to suspension appeals. Again, I believe you previously praised the Cardinals and their GM for adhering to slot and staying in the good graces of MLB – darn I wish that site had a decent search engine!
CC, I doubt I have praised the Cards for adhering to slot. There is a difference between making a positive (or factual) observation versus a normative (value laden) one.
Furthermore, the Cards have selectively chosen when to offer amateur bonuses above slot within the US.
Specifically, who did Walt sign who you think got a big hometown discount? McGwire forewent free agency in whice he could have earned more. Off the top of my memory, I cannot think of another guy well under market value. I can consider your nominees fairly, but hometown discounts are mumbo-jumbo either from the team or from the Post Dispatch, but they do not happen much in the real world. You may think you just found one for Rolen, but you may have overlooked the signing bonus.
I assume that the Player’s Union can provide pressure in the same manner that any other union can: bullying peer pressure and a reluctance to back dissenting players in disputes with the owners.
The Reds are in trouble. Empty stadium. Walter brought Rolens in for a reason…..Chemistry. Reds ownership likely said to Walter that the Rolens acquisition at this point was looking like possible a poor speculation by him……………………….. The adjusted contract is likely a career saving accommodation for both. The 5 million bonus may have to do with staying within some sort of pay roll constraints that affect revenues sharing and luxury tax monies……………….but I don’t know that for sure. Just guessing.
Payrolls have no affect on revenue sharing – not on how much a team pays or on how much it receives. The Reds wont pay a luxury tax no matter what (probably only the Yankees this year) and luxury tax revenue isnt distributed to smaller mkt teams anyway.
Rolen can easily defer because he has a $4 million dollar bonus coming from the Cardinals next year to make up for it! (deferred signing bonus from his last contract).
No, I’ll have the buffalo sandwich.
Teams receive money and luxury tax revenue………….. based on what they make and what the pay out…………….also, I was under the impression that his bonus was resolved with the cash exchanged at the trade.
Do your homework Westie or you’ll have to stay after school! No luxury tax money is distributed to teams. Revenue sharing money is distributed evenly after all (local) revenues for merchandising etc. go in to a central fund. The fund for national revenues (national broadcast rights, etc.) are ditributed based on revenues (lower revenue teams getting more).
It was resolved – the resolution was that the Cards would remain on the hook for it.
Correction, not all local revenues go to a central fund – only 31%.
Boras is talking “comparables” as discussed today in a P-D article by D. Goold. He wants to compare Holliday to Soriano or Carlos Lee. Holliday is better than them, I would agree.
However, the problem for Boras is the economy. This has reduced the appetite of teams to bid on huge contracts. So he may have a better client, but the dollars are lower, because of the economy. There is still a baseball marketplace of player salaries, but it is declining. Boras is trying to fight this decline by defining salary expectations from back during boomtime, easy money, high leverage, lots of debt, let the good times roll.
Goold’s article supports something I was saying earlier in this thread, about how salaries are calculated by teams and agents, based on precedents and data in the overall salary data base that both sides maintain and use.
Jumbo, It sounds like you are looking over my shoulder. I’ve got a a job opening right now and a pile of resumes. The so-so candidates will take whatever I’m paying. The really good ones want to make the same money they were making a couple years ago when times were good. My bank is leaning on me to hold the line on costs and avoid increasing the size of than nut I have to crack each month. Jeesh, I might as well be in the MLB business.
Sounds like Boras shooting himself in the foot to me. I don’t think even in a good market anyone would pay Soriano or Lee what they were paid knowing how their performance turned out.
Agreed. It seems Boras is taking the “three wrongs make a right” defense while ignoring market changes over time. Even so, many unbiased baseball observers would agree that Soriano’s contract is one of the worst given in recent years and I am pretty sure if the Cubs could get a do-over, Soriano would either be paid far less or would be playing elsewhere. Lee’s is hardly considered a great move either.
I see. I thought it just landed in the general fund. I hate buffalo sandwich.
Interesting that the Yankees elected to do what the Red Sox did, invest in pitching, picking up Vasquez from the Braves. The Braves were trying to lower salary costs by dumping an expensive pitcher, but nobody would take 3 more years of Derek Lowe. Thus Vasquez had to go. And only the Yankees were willing to absorb him.
Its not a great market for Holliday and Bay. Not a lot of teams want to take on big new contracts.
There is kind of impasse regarding Holliday. Boras can wait until May and the Cards do not want to bid against themselves, any more than the Dodgers wanted to do this with Manny Ramirez last winter.
It is interesting Jumbo. Lots of people think the obvious answer is the Yanks are opening up left field for a big bopper. But Cashman’s comments in NYDailyNews today make sense too. Plugging a hole in the rotation is harder than finding someone to play left and hit ninth, which is what they gave up. They want to do it for $4M. ( only the Yanks think $4M for a nine hitter is slumming) Basically in between Cabrera and Damon. Cashman reiterated they will come in under last years payroll. That can’t be making Boras happy.
There was an article the other day by a reporter who covers the Mets in which he argued the Mets should develop some self-respect about Jason Bay, not let him sit there neither accepting nor rejecting their offer. The writer suggested the Mets drop their pursuit of Bay and sign much cheaper Jack Cust to play LF.
The down economy has helped increase a new phenomeon of delay as a negotiating tactic. In a rising economy, teams would bid vigorously and fast against one another. When the highest bid was in, agents could feel comfortable accepting it quickly.
Now, however, there is not vigorous bidding for the very best free agents, because teams do not want to boost spending. Since there is not vigorous bidding, some agents would rather sit tight and hope for a miracle of a new bidder or for the high bidding team to panic and bid still higher, against itself, just to close the deal and eliminate uncertainty. Delay can be a new form of extortion, holding up a team finishing construction of next season’s roster and putting this at risk. Negotiating with agents is not a fun part of the game, doubly so when teams are reducing their spending.
In due course, Holliday has to choose between the Cards and Boston. Boston kept faith with Bay and made him an offer. Since Bay did not bite on this offer, Boston can forget about him and added Mike Cameron.
Boston still likes Holliday, but does not want to bid up the high end of the market, given how little bidding there is. So Boston and the Cards can give Holliday offers that are pretty close and he can choose between them.
In the free agent market as a whole, things could get desparate in Jan-Feb. There seem way too many players who are not getting deals. Come February, their prices will nosedive. Its the new normal, deflation in the baseball marketplace.
Maybe around early January, the Cards will need to give Holliday a deadline. The Cards cannot pay $9MM to some other team to play Julio Lugo or cannot hire Mike Cameron for insurance purposes. The Cards will want to drop out of the Holliday game before the Red Sox. The Cards may not want to wait until March to find out Holliday selects Boston.
That assumes they are going to spend the Holliday money elsewhere if they don’t sign Holliday.
If…………..Holiday had not been accessible , the Lugo deal wouldn’t haver been made. If the Cardinals do not sign DeRosa, and it appears that they won’t, and let Holiday go, for what ever reason you might select, the Cardinals are at the exact place they would of been if the Chris Carpenter experiment had failed in 09. The only real difference is they are 6 prospects short. Albert is exactly at same place he would of been if the Cardinals had place 3rd. In other words, BD’s original plan for payroll is right on course. Penny has replaced Joel and also represents an imitation of the aggressive Lohse singing at the end of 2008. Big splash, then nothing.
You might think that Holiday would be more important to them……….he is not. They are well aware of their vulnerability. Are they choosing it? If they offer an ultimatum, they will then be expected to move without restriction in the FA market……….they don’t want that! Within reason, if they don’t make some moves now, its unlikely that they will be able to offer more than the weakest gesture at impressing Pujols with a “winning commitment”…………you decide what their aspirations are.
Nowadays, in the US, the economy is in mediocre shape. And the reason was people being able to get house loans with nothing down or lots of credit cards. America became over-indebted, lived beyond its means, over aspired. Jumbo is ok if Dewitt does not over-aspire and live way beyond his means. The Cards have been around $90-100MM for ML salaries for years now. Its nothing new. Its our business plan and our upper limit. Its not going to change, at least not until the new stadium is paid off.
BD owns a bunch of Arby’s fast food joints. That does not sound glamorous and glitzy. He is not going to lose his mind and overspend like Tom Hicks. Hicks was a bud of Dubya’s and he ended up spending the Rangers into bankruptcy. It can be done.
The Cards are strategic in the free agent market. They decide who they want and go after the guy. Last year, they went after southpaw Brian Fuentes and when he declined the offer, the Cards stuck with Franklin and it worked out. They are very selective as to when they want to pay the piper on a veteran. If they cannot get someone who fits them, they do not want to tie up extra money in a guy who does not fit as well.
If Holliday, Pineiro, and DeRosa leave, the Cards pick up 4 extra premium picks and they shelled out 5 decent prospects. But Holliday may sign. He is from Oklahoma, like Penny, and if the Cards make him a fair, market offer, he may take it. Lohse did. We shall see what happens in due course.
Most all of that little speech is false Jumbo. If you think Arbys and the advertised business interests of BD are all he’s into, you need to study up. The only way he is skunked in this market, is if thats where he was headed. It would be a fantastic business move if he offered Albert 200 million, and he still walked because Albert lacked trust, as Billy 3 suggested. He has a plan. If he lost Pujols it would cost him at the box office. But that bet,he might have calculated, would be less than paying Pujols for 10 more years. I’m watching with interest. He is making money at very turn. If he can seem the victim in all this, things will change.
Westie, you have beliefs and have a tendency to want to convey your beliefs and understandings to others. You have said in the past you think DeWitt has lots of money stashed in off-shore banks. For my part, I would say, I do not know this reliably, its just your belief, even if it is sincerely held, so I do not have to accept it. Maybe BD has untold billions, but if he does there is no reason to spend these dollars on the hired help (baseball players). The Cards will pay Pujols and Holliday out of their business. For the Cards, the upper bound of ML salary spending is about $100MM, whereas for the Yankees it is more than $200MM, including luxury tax and the Red Sox may be $170MM, IIRC. The Cards are not going to be spending $125MM on salaries, even if some faux fans and Boras would like them to do so. We will see how it all turns out. Right now, the Cards and Red Sox seem to be finalists for Holliday. Boras is not all buddy-buddy with the Red Sox and the more big contracts he can place outside of Boston/NY/LA/SF, then it just means more money for another lucky player in future to play for a big market team. This gives Boras a financial inventive to land Holliday in St Louis.
WC 18 months ago: If you did decide to pass on Pujols, BD would need to do these things. (All of the above)
Of all the concerned people…………except for RC I would speculate, I could care less whether Albert stays here or not. I really don’t want BD’s play to be a finesse play. I want BD bleeding money for players to compensate an angry public. I like to win.
The real issue here is, if this is the way he thinks and operates, thats allot of “no fun”. Lets hope he is just being respectful of the collusion efforts, and not hanging in a closet somewhere, anger lady in a Cubs thong pacing outside with a whip.
Its good to come out of the closet, WC. Jumbo respects honesty.
You want the owner to be “bleeding”, because you equate this with trying to win.
While I would like DeWitt to make Albert a fair offer, then I leave it up to Albert to decide what to do. If he wants to leave, JS is indifferent, its Albert’s choice, not mine, and games will still be played, no matter what Albert chooses to do.
I’m relieved that you don’t think less of me Jumbo. I’m hanging in my closet right now. But this Cubs lady I’m enjoying is paying Alfonso 130 million, Milton Bradley 33 million, ouch-ouch, don’t hold back honey, give to me good. Oh yeah, extend Zambrano fro me, thats it.
Way to go Westy.
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n179/wpd80/ridingdude.jpg
Near miss BB. She was a red head.